This rule relaxes the minimum size and grade requirements currently prescribed for grapefruit under the marketing order for oranges and grapefruit grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas (order). The order is administered locally by the Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee). This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 35/16 inches to 3 inches in diameter and reduces the minimum grade requirement for small-sized grapefruit. This rule will provide additional grapefruit to meet market demand, helping to maximize fresh shipments.

DATES:

Effective March 1, 2014; comments received by April 29, 2014 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting comments will be made public on the internet at the address provided above.

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13175, and 13563.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

This rule relaxes the minimum size and grade requirements for grapefruit prescribed under the order. This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 35/16 inches to 3 inches in diameter and reduces the minimum grade requirement for small-sized grapefruit. This rule will provide additional grapefruit to meet market demand and will help maximize fresh shipments. These changes were unanimously recommended by the Committee at a meeting on December 11, 2013.

Section 906.40 of the order provides, in part, authority to establish minimum grade and size requirements for Texas citrus. Section 906.340 of the rules and regulations includes Table II that specifies the numerical size designations and diameters used to delineate the available pack sizes for grapefruit. Section 906.365 specifies the minimum grade and size requirements for fresh shipments of Texas grapefruit.

At its meeting, the Committee discussed the impact the recent freeze in California had on the citrus crop and agreed the freeze had reduced the amount of fruit available for shipment to the fresh market. They also discussed the decline in citrus production in Florida caused by citrus greening and other diseases. The Committee believes this creates a shortage of fruit available to supply the fresh fruit market, which the Texas citrus growers and handlers should fill. The Committee noted that additional fruit was available from the Texas citrus industry. However, the fruit is smaller in size and would not meet the order's current size and grade requirements. The Committee also recognized that consumers are now showing a preference for smaller-sized fruit. The Committee believes relaxing the requirements would make more fruit available to fill the market shortfall caused by the decline in production from other growing regions and provide smaller-sized fruit to meet consumer demand.

Consequently, to make more fruit available for shipment to the fresh market and to meet consumer demand, the Committee recommended a relaxation of the size and grade requirements for grapefruit. This rule changes the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 35/16 inches (size 56) to 3 inches (size 64) in diameter and adds size 64 to the available pack sizes for grapefruit listed under Table II in § 906.340, as well as adding language concerning pack and sizing requirements.

Currently, fruit sized 48 (39/16 inches) and larger must meet a minimum grade requirement of a “Texas Choice” as defined in § 906.137 of the order, while size 56 fruit must meet the more restrictive grade of a U.S. No. 1. This rule relaxes the minimum grade for a size 56, establishing a minimum grade of “Texas Choice” for both size 56 and size 64 grapefruit. This makes the minimum grade consistent for all available sizes.

The Committee believes relaxing these size and grade requirements will make more fruit available to meet market demand, helping to maximize fresh shipments and increasing returns to growers and handlers.

The Committee also recommended a relaxation in the minimum size requirement for oranges covered under the order. This change is being considered under a separate action.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf.

There are 13 registered handlers of Texas citrus who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 150 producers of grapefruit in the regulated area. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to National Agricultural Statistics Service data, the average f.o.b. price for Texas grapefruit during the 2012-13 season was $24.10 per box, and total fresh shipments were approximately 3 million boxes. Using the average f.o.b. price and shipment data, and considering a normal distribution, the majority of Texas grapefruit handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. In addition, based on production data, grower prices, and the total number of Texas citrus growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of grapefruit may be classified as small entities.

This rule relaxes the size and grade requirements for grapefruit prescribed under the order. This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for grapefruit from 35/16 inches (size 56) to 3 inches (size 64). This action also relaxes the minimum grade requirement for size 56 fruit from a U.S. No. 1 to a “Texas Choice” and establishes the minimum grade for a size 64 as a “Texas Choice.” These changes are expected to make additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market, maximize shipments, provide additional returns to handlers and growers, and respond to consumer demand for small-sized fruit. Authority for these changes is provided in § 906.40. This rule amends the provisions in §§ 906.340 and 906.365. The Committee unanimously recommended these changes at its December 11, 2013, meeting.

This rule is not expected to increase costs associated with the order's requirements. Rather, it is anticipated that this action will have a beneficial impact. Reducing size and grade requirements will make additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market. The Committee believes this will provide additional fruit to fill the shortage caused by the reduced amount of fruit available from other growing regions and will provide the opportunity to fulfill growing consumer demand for smaller-sized fruit. This action will also provide an outlet for fruit that may otherwise go unharvested, maximizing fresh shipments and increasing returns to handlers and growers. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all fresh grapefruit growers and handlers, regardless of their size.

An alternative to this action would be to maintain the current minimum requirements for domestic shipments of grapefruit. However, leaving the requirements unchanged would not make any additional fruit available nor would it provide smaller-sized fruit to meet consumer demand. Therefore, this alternative was rejected.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large Texas citrus handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the December 11, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

This rule invites comments on changes to size and grade requirements currently prescribed for grapefruit under the marketing order for oranges and grapefruit grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The shipping season for grapefruit has already started; (2) this action relaxes current size and grade requirements; (3) the Committee unanimously recommended this change at a public meeting and interested parties had an opportunity to provide input; and (4) this rule provides a 60-day comment period and any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

(A) Grapefruit, when packed in any carton, bag, or other container, shall be sized in accordance with the sizes in the following Table II, except as otherwise provided in the regulations issued pursuant to this part, and meet the requirements of standard pack; and, when in containers not packed according to a definite pattern, shall be sized in accordance with the sizes in Table II: Provided, That the packing tolerances in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona), shall apply to fruit so packed. All fruit packed to size 64 in the following Table II shall be sized in accordance with the sizes in Table II but need not otherwise meet the requirements of standard pack: Provided, That they meet the same tolerances for off-size and pack as defined in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Grapefruit (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona).

This rule relaxes the minimum size currently prescribed for oranges under the marketing order for oranges and grapefruit grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas (order). The order is administered locally by the Texas Valley Citrus Committee (Committee). The corresponding change in the orange import regulation is required under section 8e of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for oranges from 2-6/16 inches to 2-3/16 inches in diameter. This rule will provide additional oranges to meet market demand, helping to maximize fresh shipments.

DATES:

Effective March 1, 2014; comments received by April 29, 2014 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order and Agreement Division, Fruit and Vegetable Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Fax: (202) 720-8938; or Internet: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments should reference the document number and the date and page number of this issue of the Federal Register and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: http://www.regulations.gov. All comments submitted in response to this rule will be included in the record and will be made available to the public. Please be advised that the identity of the individuals or entities submitting comments will be made public on the Internet at the address provided above.

This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 906, as amended (7 CFR Part 906), regulating the handling of oranges and grapefruit grown in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.”

This rule is also issued under section 8e of the Act, which provides that whenever certain specified commodities, including oranges, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of these commodities into the United States are prohibited unless they meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, or maturity requirements as those in effect for the domestically produced commodities.

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13175, and 13563.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.

The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.

There are no administrative procedures which must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of import regulations issued under section 8e of the Act.

This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for oranges prescribed under the order. This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for oranges from 2-6/16 inches to 2-3/16 inches in diameter. This rule will provide additional oranges to meet market demand and will help maximize fresh shipments. This change was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a meeting on December 11, 2013.

Section 906.40 of the order provides, in part, authority to establish minimum size requirements for Texas citrus. Section 906.340 of the rules and regulations includes Table I that specifies the numerical size designations and diameters used to delineate the available pack sizes for oranges. Section 906.365 specifies the minimum size requirement for fresh shipments of Texas oranges. Minimum grade and size requirements for oranges imported into the United States are currently in effect under § 944.312.

At its meeting, the Committee discussed the impact the recent freeze in California had on the orange crop and agreed the freeze had reduced the amount of fruit available for shipment to the fresh market. They also discussed the decline in citrus production in Florida caused by citrus greening and other diseases. The Committee believes this creates a shortage of fruit available to supply the fresh fruit market, which the Texas citrus growers and handlers should fill. The Committee noted that additional fruit was available from the Texas citrus industry. However, the fruit is smaller in size and would not meet the order's current size requirements. The Committee also recognized that consumers are now showing a preference for smaller-sized fruit. The Committee believes relaxing the requirements would make more fruit available to fill the market shortfall caused by the decline in production of oranges from other growing regions and provide smaller-sized fruit to meet consumer demand.

Consequently, to make more fruit available for shipment to the fresh market and to meet consumer demand, the Committee recommended a relaxation of the size requirements for oranges. This rule changes the minimum size requirement for oranges from 2-6/16 inches (size 138) to 2-3/16 inches (size 163) in diameter. This rule also adds size 163 to the available pack sizes for oranges listed under Table I in § 906.340, as well as adding language concerning pack and sizing requirements as appropriate.

The Committee believes relaxing the size requirement will make more fruit available to meet market demand, helping to maximize fresh shipments and increasing returns to growers and handlers.

Section 8e of the Act provides that when certain domestically produced commodities, including oranges, are regulated under a Federal marketing order, imports of that commodity must meet the same or comparable grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements. Since this rule changes the minimum size requirement under the domestic handling regulations for oranges, a corresponding change to the import regulations must also be considered.

Minimum grade and size requirements for oranges imported into the United States are currently in effect under § 944.312. Section 944.312(i) of the Fruit Import Regulations specifies that oranges imported into the United States are in most direct competition with oranges produced in the area covered by Marketing Order No. 906. This change relaxes the minimum size requirement for imported oranges from 2-6/16 inches to 2-3/16 inches. The relaxation in the minimum size requirement also has a beneficial impact for importers of oranges. This change allows a smaller-sized orange to be shipped to the United States, thereby increasing the amount of fruit available for shipment to the fresh market, thus benefiting importers.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Import regulations issued under the Act are based on those established under Federal marketing orders.

There are 13 registered handlers of Texas citrus who are subject to regulation under the marketing order and approximately 150 producers of oranges in the regulated area. There are approximately 220 importers of oranges. Small agricultural service firms, which include handlers and importers, are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts of less than $7,000,000, and small agricultural producers are defined as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000 (13 CFR 121.201).

According to data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service and the industry and Committee, the average f.o.b. price for Texas oranges during the 2012-13 season was $25.30 per box, and total fresh orange shipments were approximately 1.5 million boxes. Using the average f.o.b. price and shipment data, the majority of Texas orange handlers could be considered small businesses under SBA's definition. In addition, based on production data, grower prices, and the total number of Texas citrus growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Information from the Foreign Agricultural Service, USDA, indicates that the dollar value of imported fresh oranges ranged from approximately $71.2 million in 2008 to $107.4 million in 2012. Using these values, most importers would have annual receipts of less than $7,000,000 for oranges. Thus, the majority of handlers, producers, and importers of oranges may be classified as small entities.

Chile, South Africa, Mexico, and Australia are the major orange-producing countries exporting oranges to the United States. In 2012, shipments of oranges imported into the United States totaled around 119,000 metric tons. Of that amount, 51,510 metric tons were imported from Chile, 35,960 metric tons were imported from South Africa, 17,421 metric tons were imported from Mexico, and 11,100 metric tons arrived from Australia.

This rule relaxes the minimum size requirement for oranges covered under the order from 2-6/16 inches (size 138) to 2-3/16 inches (size 163) and makes a corresponding change to the orange import regulation. This change is expected to make additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market, maximize shipments, provide additional returns to handlers and growers, and respond to consumer demand for small-sized fruit. Authority for this change is provided in § 906.40. This rule amends the provisions in §§ 906.340, 906.365, and 944.312. The Committee unanimously recommended this change at its December 11, 2013, meeting. The change in the import regulation is required under section 8e of the Act.

This action is not expected to increase the costs associated with the order's requirements or the orange import regulation. Rather, it is anticipated that this action will have a beneficial impact. Reducing the size requirement will make additional fruit available for shipment to the fresh market. The Committee believes that this will provide additional fruit to fill the shortage caused by the reduced amount of fruit available from other growing regions and will provide the opportunity to fulfill growing consumer demand for smaller sized fruit. This action will also provide an outlet for fruit that may otherwise go unharvested, maximizing fresh shipments and increasing returns to handlers and growers. The benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all fresh orange growers, handlers, and importers, regardless of their size.

An alternative to this action would be to maintain the current minimum requirements for domestic shipments of oranges. However, leaving the requirements unchanged would not make any additional fruit available nor would it provide smaller-sized fruit to meet consumer demand. Therefore, this alternative was rejected.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0189, Generic Fruit Crops. No changes in those requirements as a result of this action are necessary. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.

This rule will not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large citrus handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.

AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act, to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.

In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule.

Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Texas citrus industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the December 11, 2013, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this interim rule, including the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses.

A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/MarketingOrdersSmallBusinessGuide. Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jeffrey Smutny at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

This rule invites comments on changes to the size requirements for oranges currently prescribed under the marketing order for oranges and grapefruit grown in Lower Rio Grande Valley in Texas and imported oranges. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act.

In accordance with section 8e of the Act, the United States Trade Representative has concurred with the issuance of this interim rule.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the Federal Register because: (1) The shipping season for oranges has already started; (2) this action relaxes current size requirements; (3) the Committee unanimously recommended this change at a public meeting and interested parties had an opportunity to provide input; and (4) this rule provides a 60-day comment period and any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule.

(A) Oranges, when packed in any carton, bag, or other container, shall be sized in accordance with the sizes in the following Table I, and meet the requirements of standard pack; and, when in containers not packed according to a definite pattern, shall be sized in accordance with the sizes in Table I and otherwise meet the requirements of standard sizing: Provided, That the packing tolerances in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Oranges (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona), shall apply to fruit so packed. All fruit packed to size 163 in the following Table I shall be sized in accordance with the sizes in Table I but need not otherwise meet the requirements of standard sizing or standard pack: Provided, That they meet the same tolerances for off-size and pack as defined in the U.S. Standards for Grades of Oranges (Texas and States other than Florida, California, and Arizona):

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is making technical and conforming amendments to its regulations governing national banks and Federal savings associations to make those regulations consistent with the recently adopted Basel III Capital Framework. As part of these technical amendments, the OCC is revising and clarifying its regulations governing subordinated debt applicable to national banks and Federal savings associations.

DATES:

This interim final rule is effective March 31, 2014. Comments must be received by March 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Because paper mail in the Washington, DC area and at the OCC is subject to delay, commenters are encouraged to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or email, if possible. Please use the title “Basel III Conforming Amendments Related to Cross-References, Subordinated Debt and Limits Based on Regulatory Capital” to facilitate the organization and distribution of the comments. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal—“regulations.gov”: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID OCC-2014-0004” in the Search Box and click “Search.” Results can be filtered using the filtering tools on the left side of the screen. Click on “Comment Now” to submit public comments.

• Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for submitting public comments.

Instructions: You must include “OCC” as the agency name and “Docket ID OCC-2014-0004” in your comment. In general, OCC will enter all comments received into the docket and publish them on the Regulations.gov Web site without change, including any business or personal information that you provide such as name and address information, email addresses, or phone numbers. Comments received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Do not enclose any information in your comment or supporting materials that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.

You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this rulemaking action by any of the following methods:

• Viewing Comments Electronically: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Enter “Docket ID OCC-2014-0004” in the Search box and click “Search.” Comments can be filtered by Agency using the filtering tools on the left side of the screen.

• Click on the “Help” tab on the Regulations.gov home page to get information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for viewing public comments, viewing other supporting and related materials, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period.

• Viewing Comments Personally: You may personally inspect and photocopy comments at the OCC, 400 7th Street SW., Washington, DC. For security reasons, the OCC requires that visitors make an appointment to inspect comments. You may do so by calling (202) 649-6700. Upon arrival, visitors will be required to present valid government-issued photo identification and to submit to security screening in order to inspect and photocopy comments.

• Docket: You may also view or request available background documents and project summaries using the methods described above.

On October 11, 2013, the OCC published in the Federal Register the Basel III final rule (Basel III Capital Framework),1 which revised the OCC's regulatory capital rules for national banks and Federal savings associations. The Basel III Capital Framework revised the capital framework at 12 CFR part 3 applicable to national banks, which included adding a new common equity tier 1 ratio requirement, revising the definitions of tier 1 and tier 2 capital, adopting a new standardized approach for certain banks, revising the advanced approaches, revising the market risk requirements, and integrating Federal savings associations into part 3. In addition, the Basel III Capital Framework amended the prompt corrective action rules at part 6 and integrated Federal savings associations into part 6.

1See 78 FR 62018 (Oct. 11, 2013).

1. Need for Conforming and Technical Amendments

As part of the process of implementing the Basel III Capital Framework, the OCC restructured the regulatory capital rules in part 3, which included redesignation of the risk-based capital rules, market risk requirements, and the advanced approaches, codified at appendixes A, B and C, as new subparts to part 3. Accordingly, this interim final rule makes technical, clarifying, and conforming amendments to the OCC's rules applicable to national banks and Federal savings associations, by providing new cross-references to parts 3 and 6, where necessary, and by deleting obsolete references to tier 3 capital, which was eliminated in the market risk rule.2 In addition, this interim final rule makes various substantive and technical changes to the subordinated debt rules to clarify the applicable requirements, processes and procedures. Finally, the OCC notes that one consequence of revising the cross-references to the definitions of tier 1 and tier 2 capital in the new Basel III Capital Framework is that new definitions of tier 1 and tier 2 capital will be applicable with respect to the calculation of various statutory and regulatory limits in other rules that referenced the risk-based capital requirements in part 3. As part of the revisions to those cross-references, the OCC has looked at the effect that the changes in the risk-based capital would have on numerical limits in other regulations that are based on regulatory capital. As discussed in greater detail below, the OCC believes that the new definitions of capital in the Basel III Capital Framework are appropriate measures for the calculation of other various statutory and regulatory limits. However, the OCC is aware of the possibility of indirect effects of these regulatory changes and requests comment on this aspect of the new definition of capital.

2See 77 FR 53060, 53069 (Aug. 30, 2012).

2. Timing of Basel III Capital Framework Changes

The mandatory compliance date for the Basel III Capital Framework is January 1, 2014, for advanced approaches national banks and Federal savings associations,3 and January 1, 2015, for all other national banks and Federal savings associations. In order to accommodate these different compliance dates, the OCC has retained the existing regulatory capital rules for calendar year 2014 for non-advanced approaches national banks and Federal savings associations. Therefore, the existing risk-based capital requirements and the market risk requirements will stay in place as 12 CFR part 3, appendixes A and B for non-advanced approaches national banks and 12 CFR part 167 for non-advanced approaches Federal savings associations, until January 1, 2015. Thereafter, the OCC may initiate a rulemaking to remove then-obsolete provisions of the rule.

3 The Basel III Capital Framework, at 12 CFR 3.100(b)(1), defines an advanced approaches national bank or Federal savings association to mean a national bank or Federal savings association that:

1. Has consolidated total assets, as reported on its most recent year-end Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) equal to $250 billion or more;

2. Has consolidated total on-balance sheet foreign exposure on its most recent year-end Call Report equal to $10 billion or more (where total on-balance sheet foreign exposure equals total cross-border claims less claims with a head office or guarantor located in another country plus redistributed guaranteed amounts to the country of head office or guarantor plus local country claims on local residents plus revaluation gains on foreign exchange and derivative products, calculated in accordance with the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) 009 Country Exposure Report);

3. Is a subsidiary of a depository institution that uses the advanced approaches pursuant to subpart E of 12 CFR part 3 (OCC), 12 CFR part 217 (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System) (Board), or 12 CFR part 325 (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) (FDIC) to calculate its total risk-weighted assets;

4. Is a subsidiary of a bank holding company or savings and loan holding company that uses the advanced approaches pursuant to 12 CFR part 217 to calculate its total risk-weighted assets; or

5. Elects to use subpart E of 12 CFR part 3 to calculate its total risk-weighted assets.

II. Description of the Interim Final RuleA. Technical and Conforming Amendments

The Basel III Capital Framework includes major revisions to the capital adequacy rules applicable to national banks and Federal savings associations. Apart from its role in establishing minimum regulatory capital requirements for the purposes of capital adequacy, regulatory capital historically also has served as a useful measure for numerous statutory and regulatory limits used as supervisory tools for safety and soundness purposes. Examples of such measures are the legal lending limits (12 CFR part 32) and limits on investment securities (12 CFR part 1).

While conforming amendments typically are straightforward, the Basel III Capital Framework introduced an additional level of complexity. As described above, the Basel III Capital Framework provided different mandatory compliance dates for advanced approaches national banks and Federal savings associations and non-advanced approaches national banks and Federal savings associations. As a result, from January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, the current regulatory capital rules at 12 CFR part 3, appendixes A and B and 12 CFR part 167 will apply to non-advanced approaches national banks and Federal savings associations, respectively. Accordingly, this interim final rule amends the OCC's rules to replace cross-references to the current regulatory capital rules with cross-references to both the Basel III final rule and the current regulatory capital rules, where appropriate.

The Basel III Capital Framework also integrated Federal savings associations into part 6, “Prompt Corrective Action.” Accordingly, this interim final rule replaces cross-references in various regulations to part 165, the Prompt Corrective Action rule formerly applicable to Federal savings associations, with cross-references to part 6, which applies to both national banks and Federal savings associations effective January 1, 2014. Finally, this interim final rule makes other non-substantive technical corrections.

B. Subordinated Debt1. Basel III Requirements for Tier 2 Capital

This interim final rule clarifies and revises the OCC's rules governing subordinated debt to make those rules consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework. Unlike the current regulatory capital rules, the Basel III Capital Framework does not identify specific types of instruments that are included in regulatory capital. Instead, the Basel III Capital Framework lists criteria that an instrument must satisfy to be included in regulatory capital. While the OCC acknowledges that a national bank or Federal savings association may want to issue subordinated debt for liquidity or reasons other than raising regulatory capital, the OCC expects that most subordinated debt generally would qualify as tier 2 capital. A list of the criteria for an instrument to qualify as tier 2 capital can be found at 12 CFR 3.20(d):

• The instrument is issued and paid-in;

• The instrument is subordinated to depositors and general creditors of the national bank or Federal savings association;

• The instrument is not secured, not covered by a guarantee of the national bank or Federal savings association or of an affiliate of the national bank or Federal savings association, and not subject to any other arrangement that legally or economically enhances the seniority of the instrument in relation to more senior claims;

• The instrument has a minimum original maturity of at least five years. At the beginning of each of the last five years of the life of the instrument, the amount that is eligible to be included in tier 2 capital is reduced by 20 percent of the original amount of the instrument (net of redemptions) and is excluded from regulatory capital when the remaining maturity is less than one year. In addition, the instrument must not have any terms or features that require, or create significant incentives for, the national bank or Federal savings association to redeem the instrument prior to maturity; and

• The instrument, by its terms, may be called by the national bank or Federal savings association only after a minimum of five years following issuance, except that the terms of the instrument may allow it to be called sooner upon the occurrence of an event that would preclude the instrument from being included in tier 2 capital, a tax event, or if the issuing entity is required to register as an investment company pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.). In addition, with respect to any call option:

○ The national bank or Federal savings association must receive the prior approval of the OCC to exercise a call option on the instrument.

○ The national bank or Federal savings association does not create at issuance, through action or communication, an expectation the call option will be exercised.

○ Prior to exercising the call option, or immediately thereafter, the national bank or Federal savings association must either: Replace any amount called with an equivalent amount of an instrument that meets the criteria for regulatory capital under § 3.20; or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the OCC that following redemption, the national bank or Federal savings association would continue to hold an amount of capital that is commensurate with its risk.

• The holder of the instrument must have no contractual right to accelerate payment of principal or interest on the instrument, except in the event of a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceeding of the national bank or Federal savings association.

• The instrument has no credit-sensitive feature, such as a dividend or interest rate that is reset periodically based in whole or in part on the national bank's or Federal savings association's credit standing, but may have a dividend rate that is adjusted periodically independent of the national bank's or Federal savings association's credit standing, in relation to general market interest rates or similar adjustments.

• The national bank or Federal savings association, or an entity that the national bank or Federal savings association controls, has not purchased and has not directly or indirectly funded the purchase of the instrument.

• If the instrument is not issued directly by the national bank or Federal savings association or by a subsidiary of the national bank or Federal savings association that is an operating entity, the only asset of the issuing entity is its investment in the capital of the national bank or Federal savings association, and proceeds must be immediately available without limitation to the national bank or Federal savings association or the national bank's or Federal savings association's top-tier holding company in a form that meets or exceeds all the other criteria for tier 2 capital instruments under this section.

• Redemption of the instrument prior to maturity or repurchase requires the prior approval of the OCC.

• For an advanced approaches national bank or Federal savings association, the governing agreement, offering circular, or prospectus of an instrument issued after the date on which the advanced approaches national bank or Federal savings association becomes subject to 12 CFR part 3 under § 3.1(f) must disclose that the holders of the instrument may be fully subordinated to interests held by the U.S. government in the event that the national bank or Federal savings association enters into a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceeding.

2. Integration of Subordinated Debt Rules for National Banks and Federal Savings Associations

The OCC currently has separate rules for subordinated debt issued by national banks and Federal savings associations (12 CFR 5.47 and 12 CFR 163.81, respectively). In order to minimize confusion, this interim final rule does not integrate those rules. Instead, integration of those rules into a single subordinated debt rule applicable to both national banks and Federal savings associations may occur as part of a future rulemaking.

3. Subordinated Debt for National Banksi. Summary of Current § 5.47

A national bank's issuance and prepayment of subordinated debt and inclusion of subordinated debt in tier 2 capital is governed by 12 CFR 5.47, Subordinated debt as capital. Section 5.47 provides procedural and substantive requirements applicable to subordinated debt. Under paragraph (b) of the current rule, an eligible national bank 4 is required to obtain prior OCC approval to issue or prepay subordinated debt only if: (1) The bank will not be an eligible bank after the transaction; (2) the OCC has previously notified the bank that prior approval is required; or (3) prior approval is required by law. All other national banks must receive prior OCC approval to issue or prepay subordinated debt. The major provisions of § 5.47 are summarized below.

4 An eligible bank is defined in 12 CFR 5.3 to mean a national bank that is “well capitalized” as defined in 12 CFR 6.4(b)(1); has a composite rating of 1 or 2 under the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System; has a Community Reinvestment Act rating of “Outstanding” or “Satisfactory”; and is not subject to a cease and desist order, consent order, formal written agreement, or Prompt Corrective Action directive or, if subject to any such order, agreement or directive, is informed in writing by the OCC that the bank may be treated as an “eligible bank” for purposes of part 5.

Paragraph (e) provides that in order to qualify for inclusion in tier 2 capital, subordinated debt must meet the requirements in the OCC's regulatory capital rules (12 CFR part 3, appendix A, section 2(b)(4)) and must comply with the “OCC Guidelines for Subordinated Debt” in the OCC's Licensing Manual.

The regulatory capital rules in 12 CFR part 3, appendix A, limit the amount of subordinated debt that a bank may include in tier 2 capital, provide that in each of the last five years of the life of the instrument the amount eligible to be included in tier 2 capital is reduced by 20 percent of the original amount of that instrument, and require that subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital must meet the requirements of 12 CFR 3.100(f)(1) (2013).5 By cross-reference, § 3.100(f)(1) (2013) further requires that issues of subordinated debt must: (1) Have original weighted average maturities of at least five years; (2) be subordinated to the claims of depositors; (3) state on the face of the instrument that it is not a deposit and is not insured by the FDIC; (4) be unsecured; (5) be ineligible as collateral for a loan by the issuing bank; (6) provide that once any scheduled payments of principal begin, all scheduled payments shall be made at least annually and the amount repaid in each year shall be no less than in the prior year; and (7) provide that no prepayment (including payment pursuant to an acceleration clause or redemption prior to maturity) shall be made without prior OCC approval unless the bank remains an eligible bank after the prepayment.

In order to accommodate the different compliance dates for an advanced approaches bank and a non-advanced approaches bank, this interim final rule retains the current provisions of § 5.47 and makes amendments to clarify that the current rules will continue to apply to a non-advanced approaches bank prior to January 1, 2015. In addition, this interim final rule adds new paragraphs (j) through (p) that are based on the Basel III Capital Framework and provides that those paragraphs will be applicable to an advanced approaches bank beginning on the effective date of this interim final rule and to a non-advanced approaches bank on January 1, 2015. The OCC notes that these changes will apply to an advanced approaches bank when it files the Call Report for the first quarter of 2014. The OCC further notes that while paragraphs (b) through (i) and paragraphs (j) through (p) seem duplicative, this structure is intended to be temporary. Section 5.47 has been designed so that the paragraph numbering in the current rules remains unchanged until January 1, 2015. After January 1, 2015, when paragraphs (b) through (i) are no longer necessary, the OCC intends to delete them, along with all references to advanced approaches banks and non-advanced approaches banks.

Because the Basel III Capital Framework requires prior OCC approval for prepayment of subordinated debt, the interim final rule reorganizes paragraphs (j) through (p) by transaction type. As described in more detail below, the interim final rule retains current procedures for the issuance of subordinated debt, including the distinction between eligible and non-eligible banks, while the OCC adds new procedures for prepayment of subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital and prepayment in the form of a call option.

iii. Description of Changes to § 5.47

As mentioned above, paragraphs (b) through (j) represent the current version of § 5.47, which needs to be retained until January 1, 2015. With respect to those provisions, the OCC makes minimal technical and clarifying changes.

A new paragraph (a)(2), “Applicability,” explains which banks are subject to which set of rules, and when they are subject to the rules. Specifically, an advanced approaches bank will be required to use the new set of rules reflecting the new Basel III Capital Framework for tier 2 capital beginning as of the effective date of this interim final rule. Non-advanced approaches banks (generally speaking, standardized approach banks) will not be subject to the new rules until January 1, 2015. In the meantime, standardized approach banks will continue to use the current rules (in paragraphs (b) through (i)).

Consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework, an advanced approaches bank is defined as a national bank that is subject to 12 CFR part 3, subpart E; a non-advanced approaches bank is defined as a national bank that is not subject to 12 CFR part 3, subpart E.

Based on a review of §§ 5.47 and 3.100(f) (2013), the OCC believes the current rules will benefit from clarifications regarding what, if any, requirements apply to subordinated debt that is not included in tier 2 capital. While § 5.47 itself does not specifically apply any requirements to such subordinated debt, through § 3.100(f) (2013) the OCC's longstanding practice has been to apply those requirements to all subordinated debt. From a safety and soundness perspective, the OCC believes that it is important to apply certain basic requirements to all subordinated debt, regardless of whether it is included in tier 2 capital. Accordingly, new paragraph (l)(1) clarifies the list of requirements applicable to all subordinated debt. The interim final rule carries over the requirements in § 3.100(f) (2013) into paragraph (l)(1), with one minor change. Section 3.100(f) (2013) requires that subordinated debt must have an “original weighted average maturity” of at least five years. In order to be consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework, this interim final rule, in paragraph (l)(1)(i), adopts the phrase “minimum original maturity” of at least five years.6 This interim final rule carries over in paragraph (l)(1)(vi) the requirement in § 3.100(f)(1)(v) (2013) that once any scheduled payments of principal begin, all scheduled payments shall be made at least annually and the amount repaid in each year shall be no less than in the prior year. This requirement appears to have been intended to ensure that an instrument that counted as secondary capital would have a sufficient degree of permanence and predictability to justify including it in secondary capital.7 The OCC is considering whether to delete this requirement as no longer necessary from a supervisory perspective.

6 We note that for amortizing bonds (or bonds with a sinking fund) a minimum original maturity of five years could be calculated as an original weighted average maturity of at least five years. For most bonds, the weighted average life is simply the time until maturity. For amortizing bonds, however, weighted average maturity must be calculated, with each repayment time weighted by the repayment amount. First, weighted payments must be determined by multiplying each principal repayment by the number of each payment period. For example, if a bond has an outstanding principal of $100, and $10 was repaid in the first year, $20 in the second year, $30 in the third year, and the remaining $40 in the fourth year, then multiplying each payment period's number by its repayment amount results in $10 ($10 × 1), $40 ($20 × 2), $90 ($30 × 3), and $160 ($40 × 4). Next the weighted payments are added. In this example the weighted total principal repayments equal $300. Finally, the weighted total principal repayment is divided by the outstanding principal or face value of the bond. In this example, $300 is divided by $100, and the weighted average maturity of the amortizing bond is three years.

7See 46 FR 32498 (June 23, 1981). This requirement was included as part of a proposal by the FFIEC to promote a uniform definition of capital for use by the Federal bank supervisory agencies (Board, FDIC and OCC).

Question 1: The OCC invites comment on whether this payment requirement designed to ensure that a subordinated debt instrument has a sufficient degree of permanence and predictability is necessary, especially in light of the five year minimum maturity requirement.

Finally, the OCC notes that this interim final rule also carries over, in new paragraph (l)(1), the requirement in paragraph (i) of the current rule that a national bank must comply with the Securities Offering Disclosures Rules in 12 CFR part 16 when issuing subordinated debt.

Question 2: Given the clarifications in this interim final rule, are there any other requirements that the OCC should include?

New paragraph (l) clarifies the substantive requirements for subordinated debt to qualify as tier 2 capital. Specifically, paragraph (l)(2)(i) requires subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital to meet the requirements set forth in 12 CFR 3.20(d) of the Basel III Capital Framework and comply with applicable OCC guidance for subordinated debt. The requirements in 12 CFR 3.20(d) are described in II.B.1. of this Supplementary Information.

By virtue of the cross-reference to 12 CFR 3.20(d), the interim final rule makes clear that any subordinated debt intended to count as tier 2 capital must satisfy the Basel III Capital Framework. While the interim final rule does not enumerate each and every requirement, the new requirements related to acceleration and prepayment are worth noting. Under the tier 2 capital requirements in the Basel III Capital Framework, the holder of a subordinated debt instrument must have no contractual right to accelerate principal or interest on the instrument, except in the event of a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, or other similar proceeding of the bank. Thus, the interim final rule makes clear that subordinated debt that the bank does not intend to count as tier 2 capital may have broader acceleration clause triggers, while subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital may provide for acceleration only in the event of receivership, insolvency, liquidation, or similar proceedings.

With respect to call options, the Basel III Capital Framework provides that any exercise of a call option in the first five years following issuance is limited to: (1) A change in the applicable regulatory capital rules or policies that would preclude the instrument from being included in tier 2 capital; (2) the occurrence of a tax event; or (3) if the issuing entity is required to register as an investment company pursuant to the Investment Company Act of 1940. A bank may exercise a call option at any time after five years following issuance of the instrument. In addition, under the Basel III Capital Framework, prior to exercising a call option, or immediately thereafter, the bank must either: (1) Replace any amount called with an equivalent amount of an instrument that meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20; or (2) demonstrate to the satisfaction of the OCC that following redemption, the bank would continue to hold an amount of capital commensurate with its risk. The Basel III Capital Framework further clarifies in a footnote that a bank may replace tier 2 capital instruments concurrent with the redemption of existing tier 2 capital instruments.8 In order to remain consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework, the interim final rule incorporates this interpretation as footnote 1 in new paragraph (n)(2)(ii).

8See 12 CFR 3.20(d)(1)(v)(C), footnote 13.

Assuming that the subordinated debt satisfies the substantive requirements in paragraph (l), paragraph (m) sets out the procedural requirements that a bank must follow in order to issue or prepay subordinated debt. Specifically, as to prior OCC approval, these procedural requirements reflect, to a large extent, the requirements of the current subordinated debt rule and the approval requirements in the Basel III Capital Framework.

Under the current subordinated debt rule, prior OCC approval generally is required for the issuance and prepayment of all subordinated debt, except in limited instances where the bank qualifies as an “eligible bank.” The Basel III Capital Framework also explicitly requires prior OCC approval for the exercise of a call option, redemption prior to maturity, and repurchase of subordinated debt.

This interim final rule attempts to reconcile these varying approval requirements while carrying forward the existing exception for eligible banks. Consequently, this interim final rule clarifies that, while prior approval generally is required for the issuance and prepayment of all subordinated debt, in certain areas where the bank is an eligible bank, this requirement may be satisfied by an after-the-fact notice. One important qualification to the eligible bank exception, however, concerns the prepayment of subordinated debt. The prior approval requirements for such prepayments are set out in paragraph (m)(2), which distinguishes between prepayments on subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital and subordinated debt not included in tier 2 capital.

With respect to prepayment of subordinated debt that is not included in tier 2 capital, paragraph (m)(2)(i) adds a new threshold requirement, which provides that even if a bank is an eligible bank, prior OCC approval is required to prepay subordinated debt that is not included in tier 2 capital if the amount of the proposed prepayment is equal to or greater than one percent of the bank's total capital, as defined in 12 CFR 3.2. The OCC is adding this threshold because of a concern that, even in the case of an eligible bank, from a safety and soundness perspective the subordinated debt being prepaid may be significant enough, as a percentage of the bank's total capital, that the OCC should have a prior opportunity to review the prepayment.

Question 3: Is the new threshold appropriate? Should the percentage of total capital be higher or lower? Is there a different threshold that would serve the same purpose?

With respect to prepayment of subordinated debt that is included in tier 2 capital, consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework, the interim final rule requires all national banks to obtain prior OCC approval to prepay subordinated debt in accordance with the procedures in paragraph (n). New paragraph (n)(1)(i) sets forth the information that a bank must include in an application to issue or prepay subordinated debt. The information is nearly identical to the OCC current application requirements to issue or prepay subordinated debt, except for additional submission requirements necessary to implement the substantive Basel III Capital Framework requirements on the exercise of call options. Specifically, in addition to the general information required to be submitted under paragraph (n)(1)(ii)(A), paragraph (n)(1)(ii)(B) requires a national bank to submit either: (1) A statement explaining why the bank believes that following the proposed prepayment the bank would continue to hold an amount of capital commensurate with its risk; or (2) a description of the replacement capital instrument that meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20, including the amount of such instrument and the time frame for issuance.

New paragraph (n)(1)(iii) provides that the OCC retains the right to request additional relevant information as appropriate. Although there is no similar provision in the current rule, this right to request additional relevant information is consistent with the OCC's current licensing authority.

New paragraph (n)(2)(i) carries over the current automatic 30-day approval provisions which provide that an application is deemed approved by the OCC as of the 30th day after the filing is received by the OCC, unless the OCC notifies the bank prior to that date that the filing presents a significant supervisory or compliance concern, or raises a significant legal or policy issue. This is identical to the procedure in the current rule, with the addition of procedures to address call options set out in new paragraph (n)(2)(ii). A special procedure is required because, as described above, the Basel III Capital Framework requires a bank exercising a call option either to replace the instrument or satisfy the OCC that following redemption the bank would continue to hold an amount of capital commensurate with its risk. Therefore, the “deemed approved” procedure in paragraph (n)(2)(i) applicable for all other applications for prepayment is not consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework when call options are involved. Accordingly, new paragraph (n)(2)(ii) states that the bank must receive affirmative approval to exercise the call option and, if the OCC requires the bank to replace the subordinated debt, requires the bank to receive affirmative approval that the replacement capital instrument meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20. In addition, consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework, paragraph (n)(2)(ii) further requires that the bank must issue the replacement instrument prior to exercising the call option, or immediately thereafter, and clarifies in footnote 1 that a bank may replace tier 2 capital instruments concurrent with the redemption of existing tier 2 capital instruments.9

9 In order to ensure enforceability of the requirement to issue a replacement instrument, consistent with longstanding practice, the OCC approval letter may provide that approval of the application is conditioned upon the bank issuing the replacement instrument within a specified period of time and that the condition is “imposed in writing by a Federal banking agency in connection with any action on any application, notice, or other request” within the meaning of 12 U.S.C. 1818, and as such, is enforceable under 12 U.S.C. 1818.

New paragraph (n)(2)(iv) carries over the current transaction timing requirements, which provide that approval expires if a national bank does not complete the sale of the subordinated debt within one year of approval. This provision is generally the same as the current rule, with the addition of clarifying language necessary to address the issuance of replacement capital instruments.

The OCC notes that, consistent with longstanding practice, this interim final rule does not require the bank to notify the OCC or receive OCC prior approval to redeem subordinated debt in accordance with the stated maturity in the instrument.

Question 4: Do commenters agree with this approach? Are there any circumstances where the OCC should require notice or prior approval to redeem a subordinated debt instrument at maturity?

A Federal savings association's issuance of subordinated debt and mandatorily redeemable preferred stock (collectively referred to as “covered securities”) to be included in supplementary (tier 2) capital is governed by § 163.81, “Inclusion of subordinated debt securities and mandatorily redeemable preferred stock as supplementary capital.” This interim final rule amends § 163.81 to make it consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework and to make other non-substantive technical amendments. The Basel III Capital Framework's requirements for tier 2 capital are set forth at 12 CFR 3.20(d) and listed above in Section II.B.1. of the Supplementary Information. The OCC notes that this interim final rule does not create a single subordinated debt rule applicable to both national banks and Federal savings associations. The OCC may integrate the two rules into a single subordinated debt rule applicable to both national banks and Federal savings associations as part of a future rulemaking.

To comply with the Basel III Capital Framework, this interim final rule makes structural changes to § 163.81 that mirror the structural changes to the national bank rules for subordinated debt in § 5.47 described in Section II.B.3.ii. of the Supplementary Information. Specifically, this interim final rule retains the current structure of § 163.81 and makes amendments to clarify that the current rule will continue to apply to a non-advanced approaches savings association prior to January 1, 2015. In addition, this interim final rule adds new paragraphs (h) through (q) that comply with the Basel III Capital Framework and provides that those paragraphs are applicable to an advanced approaches savings association beginning on March 31, 2014, and a non-advanced approaches savings association on January 1, 2015. The OCC notes that, similar to the amendments to § 5.47, the amendments to § 163.81 are intended to be temporary. Section 163.81 has been structured in a manner so that the paragraph numbering in the current rules will remain unchanged, and after January 1, 2015, when paragraphs (a) through (g) are no longer necessary, the OCC intends to delete those paragraphs, along with all references to advanced approaches and non-advanced approaches savings associations. After paragraphs (a) through (g) are deleted, paragraphs (h) through (q) will be redesignated as paragraphs (a) through (j).

Because the Basel III Capital Framework requires prior OCC approval for prepayment of subordinated debt and imposes additional requirements when the prepayment is in the form of a call option, neither of which are included in the current § 163.81, this interim final rule adds new provisions requiring prior approval for prepayment of covered securities included in tier 2 capital. As described in more detail below, the interim final rule retains current procedures for the issuance of covered securities included in tier 2 capital and the distinction between expedited and standard processing, while new procedures are being added for prepayment of subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital and prepayment in the form of a call option.

iii. Description of Changes to § 163.81(a) Changes to the Current Rule

For a non-advanced approaches savings association prior to January 1, 2015, the OCC retains the current rule with no substantive changes. The interim final rule revises paragraph (a) by renaming it “Applicability and scope” and adding a new paragraph (a)(1), “Applicability.” New paragraph (a)(1)(i) defines an advances approaches savings association as a Federal savings association that is subject to 12 CFR part 3, subpart E, and a non-advanced approaches savings association as a Federal savings association that is not subject to 12 CFR part 3, subpart E. New paragraph (a)(1)(ii) provides that an advanced approaches savings association must comply with new paragraphs (h) through (q) of this section beginning on March 31, 2014. New paragraph (a)(1)(iii) provides that a non-advanced approaches savings association, prior to January 1, 2015, must comply with paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section, and beginning on January 1, 2015, must comply with paragraphs (h) through (q) of this section. This interim final rule redesignates the scope section as paragraph (a)(2) and amends it to clarify that paragraphs (a) through (g) of § 163.81 apply to a non-advanced approaches savings association prior to January 1, 2015. In addition, this interim final rule adds a sentence at the end of paragraph (a)(2) clarifying that covered securities not included in tier 2 capital are subject to the requirements of § 163.80, “Borrowing limitations.” The OCC is adding this sentence, which appears in the thrift supervision applications handbook,10 to clarify that there are some requirements that apply to covered securities not included in tier 2 capital. Finally, the interim final rule makes non-substantive, technical amendments to the current rule.

(b) New Provisions To Comply With the Requirements of the Basel III Capital Framework

To comply with the requirements of the Basel III Capital Framework, this interim final rule adds new paragraphs (h) through (q), which are applicable to an advanced approaches savings association beginning on March 31, 2014, and a non-advanced approaches savings association beginning on January 1, 2015. Under new paragraph (h), “Scope,” a new paragraph (h)(1) provides the relevant dates on which advanced approaches and non-advanced approaches savings associations must comply with paragraphs (h) through (q) and, in order to comply with the Basel III Capital Framework, adds that those paragraphs also apply to the prepayment of covered securities included in tier 2 capital. In addition, this interim final rule adds the identical sentence described in Section II.B.4.iii.a. of the Supplementary Information, at the end of paragraph (h)(2) clarifying that covered securities not included in tier 2 capital are subject to the requirements of § 163.80, “Borrowing limitations.” This interim final rule adds new paragraph (h)(3) that carries over the definition of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock from the current regulatory capital rules for savings associations.11 This is necessary because the Basel III Capital Framework does not define this term and the current regulatory capital rules for savings associations will sunset after the Basel III Capital Framework becomes effective for all savings associations.

11See 12 CFR 167.5(b)(2)(iv).

To comply with the Basel III requirement that Federal savings associations must obtain prior OCC approval to prepay instruments included in tier 2 capital, this interim final rule adds new paragraph (i). Paragraph (i) provides that a savings association must obtain prior OCC approval to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital. Consistent with Basel III, paragraph (i) further provides that, for the purposes of this requirement, the term “prepayment” includes acceleration of a covered security, repurchase of a covered security, redemption of a covered security prior to maturity, and exercise of a call option in connection with a covered security.

New paragraph (j), “Application and notice procedures,” is divided into two parts: (1) An application or notice to include covered securities in tier 2 capital, and (2) an application to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital. The requirements for an application to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital contain general rules, and rules that apply if the prepayment is in the form of a call option. The requirements in paragraph (j)(1) for an application or notice to include covered securities in tier 2 capital remain the same as the requirements in the current rule. The final rule adds a new paragraph (j)(2), “Application to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital.” Because the Basel III Capital Framework requires OCC prior approval to prepay all instruments included in tier 2 capital, paragraph (j)(2)(i), “General,” provides that such a filing is subject to standard treatment under 12 CFR part 116, subpart E. Paragraph (j)(2)(ii)(A) implements the Basel III Capital Framework requirement that, prior to exercising a call option, or immediately thereafter, a Federal savings association must either: Replace any amount called with an equivalent amount of an instrument that meets the criteria for regulatory capital under 12 CFR 3.20, or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the OCC that following redemption, the savings association would continue to hold an amount of capital that is commensurate with its risk. The language in this provision mirrors the new language in the subordinated debt rule applicable to national banks. When the prepayment is in the form of a call option, paragraph (j)(2)(ii)(B) provides a special requirement that, if the OCC conditions its approval of repayment in the form of a call option on a requirement that a savings association must replace the covered security with a covered security of an equivalent amount that satisfies the requirements for a tier 1 or tier 2 instrument, the savings association must file an application to issue the replacement covered security and must receive prior OCC approval.

This interim final rule adds a new paragraph (k), “General requirements,” which provides that a covered security issued under this § 163.81 must satisfy the requirements for tier 2 capital in 12 CFR 3.20(d).

This interim final rule adds new paragraph (l), “Securities requirements for inclusion in tier 2 capital,” which addresses the form of a certificate evidencing a covered security and the disclosure of certain information. This interim final rule carries forward the disclosures required under the current rule, with an amendment to the requirement that a certificate must disclose that the savings association is required to obtain OCC approval before the acceleration of payment of principal on subordinated debt securities. In addition to acceleration, the Basel III Capital Framework requires prior OCC approval in the case of redemption prior to maturity, repurchase, or exercising a call option. Accordingly, this interim final rule adds those transactions to the disclosure. Also, since not all subordinated debt may include the ability to prepay in those circumstances, this interim final rule also adds the phrase, “where applicable” to clarify that the disclosure should include only those transactions that are provided for in the subordinated debt security.

New paragraph (l) carries over two provisions under the securities requirements of the current rule in paragraph (c)(2) and (3). The first requirement that is being removed is a requirement that covered securities must have an original weighted average maturity or original weighted average period to required redemption of at least five years. The OCC is removing this requirement because the Basel III Capital Framework already requires that an instrument included in tier 2 capital must have a minimum original maturity of at least five years. The second requirement we are removing addresses mandatory prepayment and provides the circumstances under which covered securities may provide for events of default or contain other provisions that could result in a mandatory prepayment of principal. This provision is being removed because it is inconsistent with the requirement in the Basel III Capital Framework that the holder of an instrument included in tier 2 capital must have no contractual right to accelerate payment of principal or interest on the instrument, except in the event of a receivership, insolvency, liquidation, or other similar proceeding of the Federal savings association.

This interim final rule carries over with no substantive changes the provisions that address review by the OCC, amendments, sale of covered securities, and reports as new paragraphs (m), (n), (o), and (q), respectively.

In order to comply with the Basel III Capital Framework, this interim final rule adds new paragraph (p), “Issuance of a replacement regulatory capital instrument in connection with exercising a call option.” Paragraph (p) provides that when a Federal savings association seeks prior approval to exercise a call option in connection with a covered security included in tier 2 capital, the OCC may require the savings association to issue a replacement covered security of an equivalent amount that qualifies as tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20. If the OCC imposes such a requirement, paragraph (p) requires the savings association to complete the sale of the covered security prior to, or immediately after, the prepayment. As discussed in Section II.B.3.iv. of the Supplemental Information, consistent with the Basel III Capital Framework and amendments to the subordinated debt rule for national banks, the interim final rule adds a footnote clarifying that a savings association may replace tier 2 capital instruments concurrent with the redemption of existing tier 2 capital instruments.

C. Limitations Based on Capital

The OCC's rules currently cross-reference the part 3 definitions of tier 1 and tier 2 regulatory capital as the basis for limits in other regulations that are based on capital. Examples of such limits are the lending limit and the limit applicable to investment securities. One consequence of this final rule, which revises cross-references to the definitions of tier 1 and tier 2 capital to pick up the definitions in the new Basel III Capital Framework, is that the new definitions of tier 1 and tier 2 capital will be applicable with respect to the calculation of these other regulatory limits for advanced approaches banks and advanced approaches savings associations on the effective date of this interin final rule and for non-advanced approaches banks and savings associations on January 1, 2015. In determining to revise the cross-references, the OCC looked at the potential effect of the changes in capital on numerical limits that are based on regulatory capital.

The OCC has reviewed the effect of cross-referencing the Basel III Capital Framework on other OCC limits based on the amount of a bank's or savings association's capital and surplus.12 Our overall assessment of the effect of these changes is that for most FDIC-insured institutions, we do not expect reliance on the Basel III Capital Framework to have a significant impact on lending limits or other components of a bank's or savings association's activities that are linked to the amount of a bank's or savings association's capital and surplus. While the Basel III rule is tightening the definition of what may count towards a bank's or savings association's capital and surplus, we expect that banks and savings associations generally will increase the amount of capital rather than reduce the amount of assets, in order to comply with minimum capital requirements under the capital rules. In addition, we further anticipate that banks and savings associations generally will choose to hold an additional 2.5 percent of total risk-weighted assets, for a total of 10.5 percent of total risk-weighted assets, in order to remain “well capitalized” and avoid limitations on distributions and discretionary bonus payments imposed by the new capital conservation buffer. Therefore, the OCC believes that under the Basel III Capital Framework, banks and savings associations holding capital at minimum required amounts generally will be holding more capital than under current rules, and thus, their lending limits and other limits tied to the amount of their capital and surplus will be unambiguously higher.

12 For national banks, the limitations based on capital use the term “capital and surplus,” which is defined as tier 1 capital and tier 2 capital plus the amount of the allowance for loan and lease losses (ALLL) not included in the bank's tier 2 capital. For Federal savings associations, except for lending limits, which are based on “capital and surplus,” the limitations based on capital use the term “total capital,” which is defined as tier 1 capital plus tier 2 capital. The OCC determined that the difference between the two definitions was de minimis and therefore its analysis uses the term “capital and surplus” for both national banks and Federal savings associations.

Even with respect to national banks and Federal savings associations that experience decreasing capital-linked limits because of the Basel III changes, the OCC does not expect this to be a problem for most institutions. First, based on our analysis, most banks and savings associations will experience little change in capital and surplus under the Basel III Capital Framework relative to current rules. Second, most banks and Federal savings associations typically hold capital in excess of regulatory minimums. The Basel III changes could cause capital amounts to decrease or increase for these institutions.13 Banks that encounter lower limits on capital-linked activities because of the Basel III changes can increase these activity limits by increasing the amount of capital they hold, which is generally the intent of capital-linked activity regulations. Finally, a number of banks and savings associations have internal limits on activities far below the statutory limit; for those institutions, there would be no impact on their level of activity. However, even if the reduced statutory limit becomes a binding constraint, those institutions can make appropriate adjustments to their capital.

13 In particular, inclusion of accumulated other comprehensive income (AOCI) could increase the volatility of capital and surplus for those institutions required to include AOCI in common equity tier 1 capital. However, the OCC notes that under the Basel III Capital Framework, a bank or savings association that is not an advanced approaches bank or savings association may make a one-time election to opt out of the requirement to include all components of AOCI in common equity tier 1. For those institutions, the treatment of AOCI will remain the same.

In addition, we note that, due to differing compliance dates in the Basel III Capital Framework, non-advanced approaches banks and savings associations will not experience any impact on the limits based on capital until January 1, 2015. Furthermore, the Basel III Capital Framework provides various transitions for the capital conservation and countercyclical capital buffers, regulatory capital adjustments and deductions, and non-qualifying capital instruments, which provides institutions an opportunity to adjust their capital and surplus levels to accommodate desired levels of any capital-linked activities. Nevertheless, we advise any banks or savings associations that have concerns about the potential negative impact of these conforming amendments, particularly advanced approaches banks during 2014, to discuss those concerns with their supervisors.

While the OCC does not anticipate that the definitional changes to capital in the Basel III Capital Framework will have a material impact on a significant number of national banks and Federal savings associations, the OCC is sensitive to potential concerns about the impact of these changes on limitations based on capital. To address these concerns, the OCC intends to closely monitor and assess the impact of the implementation of the Basel III Capital Framework on such limitations. As part of this process, the OCC may issue a separate notice of proposed rulemaking if the OCC sees specific safety and soundness or other supervisory concerns.

Question 5: To assist the OCC in information gathering, we are requesting comments on the impact of changes in the definition of capital on a bank's or savings association's limits based on capital.

III. Request for Comments

In addition to the specifically enumerated questions in the preamble, the OCC requests comment on all aspects of this interim final rule. The OCC requests that, for the specifically enumerated questions, commenters include the number of the question in their response to make review of the comments more efficient.

IV. Regulatory AnalysisA. Administrative Procedure Act

Pursuant to sections 553(b) and (d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),14 the OCC finds that there is good cause for issuing this interim final rule. The Basel III Capital Framework made major revisions to the capital adequacy rules applicable to national banks and Federal savings associations, including the substantive criteria and approval process for instruments included in tier 2 capital. All of those revisions to the OCC's capital adequacy rules were adopted through the notice and comment procedure in accordance with the APA. As described in the preamble to the Basel III Capital Framework, the agencies revised their regulatory capital requirements to promote safe and sound banking practices and implement Basel III and other aspects of the Basel III Capital Framework by adopting, among other things, rules intended to improve both the quality and quantity of a banking organization's capital.

14See 5 U.S.C. 553(b) and (d).

This interim final rule revises §§ 5.47 and 163.81 to be consistent with those rules and makes other necessary clarifying and technical amendments to various regulations that impose regulatory limits based on capital. Because the mandatory compliance date for the Basel III Capital Framework is January 1, 2014, for advanced approaches nationals banks and Federal savings associations, such institutions will be required to comply with the Basel III Capital Framework when they file their Call Report for the first quarter of 2014. It is necessary to publish this interim final rule in order to clarify for banks and savings associations which capital rules are applicable with respect to subordinated debt and the various limits based on capital. For these reasons, the OCC has determined that issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking would be impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. Accordingly, the OCC finds good cause to issue this interim final rule.

B. Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act

The Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 requires that the effective date of new regulations and amendments to regulations that impose additional reporting, disclosures, or other new requirements on insured depository institutions shall be the first day of a calendar quarter that begins on or after the date the regulations are published in final form.15 For the reasons described above, the OCC finds good cause to make this interim final rule effective March 31, 2014.

15See 12 U.S.C. 4802(b)(1).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 16 generally requires an agency that is issuing a proposed rule to prepare and make available for public comment an initial regulatory flexibility analysis that describes the impact of the proposed rule on small entities. The RFA does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required.17 For the reasons described above, the OCC has determined, for good cause, that it is unnecessary to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this interim final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirements relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

16See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

17See 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1532, requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating any rule likely to result in a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more, as adjusted for inflation, in any one year. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act only applies when an agency issues a general notice of proposed rulemaking. Because the OCC is not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking, this final rule is not subject to section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.

E. Paperwork Reduction Act

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.), the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, an information collection unless the information collection displays a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC has submitted the information collection requirements contained in this rule to OMB.

This interim final rule amends a number of regulatory provisions that have currently approved collections of information under the PRA.18 The amendments adopted today do not change the rules in a way that substantively modifies the collections of information that OMB has approved. Therefore, the changes to these collections will be limited to adjustments in the number of responses or frequency of response.

18 OMB Control Nos. 1557-0014, 1557-0190, 1557-0243, and 1557-0310.

One new collection of information is introduced by the interim final rule. In order to prepay subordinated debt in the form of a call option, in addition to the general information required to be submitted by a national bank under § 5.47(n)(1)(ii)(A) and by a Federal savings association under 12 CFR part 116, subpart A, a bank or savings association must submit either a statement explaining why it believes that, following the proposed prepayment, it would continue to hold an amount of capital commensurate with its risk, or a description of the replacement capital instrument that meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital under § 3.20, including the amount of such instrument and the time frame for issuance.

Title: Prepayment of Subordinated Debt in the Form of a Call Option.

Frequency of Response: Event generated.

Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.

Total Burden for § 5.47 after issuance of interim final rule:

Number of Respondents: 184.

Burden per Respondent: 1.30 hours.

Total Burden: 239 hours.

The OCC requests comment on:

a. Whether the information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the OCC's functions, and how the instructions can be clarified so that information gathered has more practical utility;

b. The accuracy of the OCC's estimates of the burdens of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

c. Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;

d. Ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and

e. Estimates of capital or startup costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.

(1) A bank's tier 1 and tier 2 capital calculated under the OCC's risk-based capital standards set forth in 12 CFR part 3, as applicable (or comparable capital guidelines of the appropriate Federal banking agency), as reported in the bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) filed under 12 U.S.C. 161 (or under 12 U.S.C. 1817 in the case of a state member bank); plus

PART 4—ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS, AVAILABILITY AND RELEASE OF INFORMATION, CONTRACTING OUTREACH PROGRAM, POST-EMPLOYMENT RESTRICTIONS FOR SENIOR EXAMINERS3. The authority citation for part 4 is revised to read as follows:Authority:

4. Section 4.7(b)(1)(iii)(A) is revised to read as follows:§ 4.7 Frequency of examination of Federal agencies and branches.

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) * * *

(A) The foreign bank's most recently reported capital adequacy position consists of, or is equivalent to, common equity tier 1, tier 1 and total risk-based capital ratios that satisfy the definition of “well capitalized” set forth at 12 CFR 6.4, respectively, on a consolidated basis; or

PART 5—RULES, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES FOR CORPORATE ACTIVITIES5. The authority citation for part 5 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(1) A bank's tier 1 and tier 2 capital calculated under the OCC's risk-based capital standards set forth in 12 CFR part 3, as applicable, as reported in the bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus

§ 5.34 [Amended]7. Section 5.34(d)(2) is amended by removing the phrase “12 CFR 6.4(b)(1)” and adding the phrase “12 CFR 6.4” in its place.§ 5.36 [Amended]8. Section 5.36(c)(2) is amended by removing the phrase “12 CFR 6.4(b)(1)” and by adding the phrase “12 CFR 6.4” in its place.§ 5.39 [Amended]9. Section 5.39(d)(10) is amended by removing the phrase “12 CFR 6.2(g)” and adding the phrase “12 CFR 6.2” in its place.§ 5.46 [Amended]10. Section 5.46(e)(1) is amended by removing the phrase “, including a plan to achieve minimum capital ratios filed with the appropriate district office under 12 CFR 3.7”.11. Section 5.47 is revised to read as follows:§ 5.47 Subordinated debt as capital.

(a) Authority and applicability. (1) Authority. 12 U.S.C. 93a.

(2) Applicability. (i) For purposes of this section, an advanced approaches bank means a national bank that is subject to 12 CFR part 3, subpart E, and a non-advanced approaches bank means a national bank that is not subject to 12 CFR part 3, subpart E.

(ii) An advanced approaches bank, beginning on March 31, 2014, must comply with paragraphs (j) through (p) of this section.

(iii) A non-advanced approaches bank, prior to January 1, 2015, must comply with paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section. Beginning on January 1, 2015, a non-advanced approaches bank must comply with paragraphs (j) through (p) of this section.

(b) Licensing requirements for non-advanced approaches banks prior to January 1, 2015. A national bank does not need prior OCC approval to issue subordinated debt, or to prepay subordinated debt (including payment pursuant to an acceleration clause or redemption prior to maturity) provided the bank remains an eligible bank after the transaction, unless the OCC has previously notified the bank that prior approval is required, or unless prior approval is required by law. No prior approval is required for an eligible bank to count the subordinated debt as tier 2. However, an eligible bank issuing subordinated debt shall notify the OCC after issuance if the debt is to be counted as tier 2.

(c) Scope. For non-advanced approaches banks prior to January 1, 2015, paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section set forth the procedures for OCC review and approval of an application to issue or prepay subordinated debt and inclusion of subordinated debt in tier 2 capital.

(d) Definitions. (1) Capital plan means a plan describing the means and schedule by which a national bank will attain specified capital levels or ratios, including a capital restoration plan filed with the OCC under 12 U.S.C. 1831o and 12 CFR 6.5.

(2) Tier 2 capital has the same meaning as set forth in 12 CFR part 3, appendix A, section (2)(b).

(3) If the OCC notifies a national bank that it must obtain OCC approval before issuing subordinated debt, the subordinated debt will not qualify as tier 2 until the bank obtains OCC approval for its inclusion in capital.

(f) Prior approval procedure. (1) Application. A national bank required to obtain OCC approval before issuing or prepaying subordinated debt shall submit an application to the appropriate district office. The application must include:

(i) A description of the terms and amount of the proposed issuance or prepayment;

(ii) A statement of whether the bank is subject to a capital plan or required to file a capital plan with the OCC and, if so, how the proposed change conforms to the capital plan;

(iii) A copy of the proposed subordinated note format and note agreement; and

(2) Approval. (i) General. The application is deemed approved by the OCC as of the 30th day after the filing is received by the OCC, unless the OCC notifies the bank prior to that date that the filing presents a significant supervisory, or compliance concern, or raises a significant legal or policy issue.

(ii) Tier 2. When the OCC notifies the bank that the OCC approves the bank's application to issue or prepay the subordinated debt, it also notifies the bank whether the subordinated debt qualifies as tier 2.

(iii) Expiration of approval. Approval expires if a national bank does not complete the sale of the subordinated debt within one year of approval.

(g) Notice procedure. If a national bank is not required to obtain approval before issuing subordinated debt, the bank shall notify the appropriate district office in writing within ten days after issuing subordinated debt that is to be counted as tier 2. The notice must include:

(1) The terms of the issuance;

(2) The amount and date of receipt of funds;

(3) A copy of the final subordinated note format and note agreement; and

(h) Exceptions to rules of general applicability. Sections 5.8, 5.10, and 5.11 do not apply to the issuance of subordinated debt.

(i) Issuance of subordinated debt. A national bank shall comply with the Securities Offering Disclosure Rules in 12 CFR part 16 when issuing subordinated debt even if the bank is not required to obtain prior approval to issue subordinated debt.

(j) Scope. For advanced approaches banks beginning March 31, 2014 and non-advanced approaches banks beginning January 1, 2015, paragraphs (j) through (p) of this section set forth the procedures for OCC review and approval of an application to issue or prepay subordinated debt and a notice to include subordinated debt in tier 2 capital.

(k) Definitions.

Capital plan means a plan describing the means and schedule by which a national bank will attain specified capital levels or ratios, including a capital restoration plan filed with the OCC under 12 U.S.C. 1831o and 12 CFR 6.5.

(ii) Not be a deposit and not insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation;

(iii) Be subordinated to the claims of depositors;

(iv) Be unsecured;

(v) Be ineligible as collateral for a loan by the issuing bank;

(vi) Provide that once any scheduled payments of principal begin, all scheduled payments shall be made at least annually and the amount repaid in each year shall be no less than in the prior year;

(vii) Where applicable, provide that no prepayment (including payment pursuant to an acceleration clause, redemption prior to maturity, repurchase, or exercising a call option) shall be made without prior OCC approval; and

(viii) Comply with the Securities Offering Disclosure Rules in 12 CFR part 16.

(2) Additional requirements to qualify as tier 2 capital. In order to qualify as tier 2 capital, a national bank's subordinated debt must meet the requirements in 12 CFR 3.20(d) and must comply with applicable OCC guidance for subordinated debt.

(1) The bank will not continue to be an eligible bank after the transaction;

(2) The OCC has previously notified the bank that prior approval is required; or

(3) Prior approval is required by law.

(B) Bank not an eligible bank. A bank that is not an eligible bank must receive prior OCC approval to issue any subordinated debt, in accordance with paragraph (n) of this section.

(ii) Notice to include subordinated debt in tier 2 capital. All national banks must notify the OCC, in accordance with paragraph (o) of this section, within ten days after issuing subordinated debt that is to be counted as tier 2 capital. Where a bank's application to issue subordinated debt has been deemed to be approved, in accordance with paragraph (n)(2)(i) of this section, the bank must notify the OCC, pursuant to paragraph (o) of this section, after issuance of the subordinated debt. A national bank may not include subordinated debt as tier 2 capital unless the bank has filed the notice with the OCC and received notification from the OCC that the subordinated debt issued by the bank qualifies as tier 2 capital.

(2) Prepayment of subordinated debt. (i) Subordinated debt not included in tier 2 capital. (A) Eligible bank. An eligible bank is required to receive prior approval from the OCC to prepay any subordinated debt that is not included in tier 2 capital (including acceleration, repurchase, redemption prior to maturity, and exercising a call option), in accordance with paragraph (n)(1)(i) of this section, only if:

(1) The bank will not be an eligible bank after the transaction;

(2) The OCC has previously notified the bank that prior approval is required;

(3) Prior approval is required by law; or

(4) The amount of the proposed prepayment is equal to or greater than one percent of the bank's total capital, as defined in 12 CFR 3.2.

(B) Bank not an eligible bank. A bank that is not an eligible bank must receive prior OCC approval to prepay any subordinated debt that is not included in tier 2 capital (including acceleration, repurchase, redemption prior to maturity, and exercising a call option), in accordance with paragraph (n)(1)(i) of this section.

(ii) Subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital.

(A) General. Notwithstanding paragraph (m)(2)(i)(B) of this section, all national banks must receive prior OCC approval to prepay subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital, in accordance with paragraph (n)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.

(B) Call Option. Notwithstanding this paragraph (m)(2)(ii)(A), a national bank must receive prior OCC approval to prepay subordinated debt included in tier 2 capital, in accordance with paragraph (n)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, when the prepayment is a result of exercising a call option.

(n) Prior approval procedure.

(1) Application.

(i) Issuance of subordinated debt. A national bank required to obtain OCC approval before issuing subordinated debt shall submit an application to the appropriate OCC Licensing office. The application must include:

(A) A description of the terms and amount of the proposed issuance;

(B) A statement of whether the bank is subject to a capital plan or required to file a capital plan with the OCC and, if so, how the proposed change conforms to the capital plan;

(C) A copy of the proposed subordinated note format and note agreement; and

(D) A statement that the subordinated debt issue complies with all laws, regulations, and applicable OCC guidance for subordinated debt.

(ii) Prepayment of subordinated debt. (A) General. A national bank required to obtain OCC approval before prepaying subordinated debt, pursuant to paragraph (m)(2) of this section, shall submit an application to the appropriate OCC Licensing office. The application must include:

(1) A description of the terms and amount of the proposed prepayment;

(2) A statement of whether the bank is subject to a capital plan or required to file a capital plan with the OCC and, if so, how the proposed change conforms to the capital plan; and

(3) A copy of the subordinated debt instrument the bank is proposing to prepay.

(B) Call Option. (1) Before prepaying subordinated debt if the prepayment is in the form of a call option, a national bank is required to obtain OCC approval, pursuant to paragraph (n)(2)(ii), by submitting an application to the appropriate OCC Licensing office.

(2) In addition to the information required in this paragraph (n)(1)(ii)(A), the application must include:

(i) A statement explaining why the bank believes that following the proposed prepayment the bank would continue to hold an amount of capital commensurate with its risk; or

(ii) A description of the replacement capital instrument that meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20, including the amount of such instrument, and the time frame for issuance.

(iii) Additional information. The OCC reserves the right to request additional relevant information, as appropriate.

(2) Approval. (i) General. The application is deemed approved by the OCC as of the 30th day after the filing is received by the OCC, unless the OCC notifies the bank prior to that date that the filing presents a significant supervisory, or compliance concern, or raises a significant legal or policy issue.

(ii) Call option. Notwithstanding this paragraph (n)(2)(i), if the application for prior approval is for prepayment in the form of a call option, the bank must receive affirmative approval to exercise the call option. If the OCC requires the bank to replace the subordinated debt, the bank must receive affirmative approval that the replacement capital instrument meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20 and must issue the replacement instrument prior to exercising the call option, or immediately thereafter.2

2 A national bank may replace tier 2 capital instruments concurrent with the redemption of existing tier 2 capital instruments.

(iii) Tier 2 capital. Following notification to the OCC pursuant to paragraph (m)(1)(ii) that the bank has issued the subordinated debt, the OCC will notify the bank whether the subordinated debt qualifies as tier 2 capital.

(iv) Expiration of approval. Approval expires if a national bank does not complete the sale of the subordinated debt within one year of approval.

(o) Notice procedure for inclusion in tier 2 capital. (1) All national banks shall notify the appropriate OCC Licensing office in writing within ten days after issuing subordinated debt that it intends to include as tier 2 capital. A national bank may not include such subordinated debt in tier 2 capital unless the bank has received notification from the OCC that the subordinated debt qualifies as tier 2 capital.

(2) The notice must include:

(i) The terms of the issuance;

(ii) The amount and date of receipt of funds;

(iii) A copy of the final subordinated note format and note agreement; and

(iv) A statement that the issuance complies with all laws, regulations, and applicable OCC guidance for subordinated debt.

(p) Exceptions to rules of general applicability. Sections 5.8, 5.10, and 5.11 do not apply to transactions governed by this section.

PART 16—SECURITIES OFFERING DISCLOSURE RULES12. The authority citation for part 16 continues to read as follows:Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1 et seq. and 93a.

§ 16.15 [Amended]13. Section 16.15(d) is amended by removing the phrase “part 3 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3, as applicable” in its place.PART 23—LEASING14. The authority citation for part 23 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(1) A bank's tier 1 and tier 2 capital calculated under the OCC's risk-based capital standards set forth in 12 CFR part 3, as applicable, as reported in the bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus

PART 24—COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENTITIES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS, AND OTHER PUBLIC WELFARE INVESTMENTS16. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(1) A bank's tier 1 and tier 2 capital calculated under the OCC's risk-based capital standards set forth in 12 CFR part 3, as applicable, as reported in the bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) as filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus

(2) The balance of a bank's allowance for loan and lease losses not included in the bank's tier 2 capital, for purposes of the calculation of risk-based capital described in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, as reported in the bank's Call Report as filed under 12 U.S.C. 161.

PART 28—INTERNATIONAL BANKING ACTIVITIES18. The authority citation for part 28 continues to read as follows:Authority:

§ 28.14 [Amended]19. Section 28.14(b) is amended by adding the phrase “subpart C,” after the phrase “12 CFR part 3,”.PART 32—LENDING LIMITS20. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows:Authority:

26. Appendix A to subpart D of part 34 is amended by revising footnote 2 to read as follows:Appendix A to Subpart D of Part 34—Interagency Guidelines for Real Estate Lending

2 For the state member banks, the term “total capital” means “total risk-based capital” as defined in appendix A to 12 CFR part 208. For insured state non-member banks, “total capital” refers to that term described in table I of appendix A to 12 CFR part 325. For national banks, the term “total capital” is defined at 12 CFR 3.2(e). For savings associations, the term “total capital” is defined at 12 CFR 567.5(c).

The cross-references in the first paragraph of this footnote were originally adopted in an interagency rulemaking and are out of date as a result of revisions to capital rules implementing the Basel III Capital Framework. See 57 FR 63889 (December 31, 1992). For national banks and Federal savings associations, the term “total capital” is defined at 12 CFR 3.2, 3.2(e), or 167.5, as applicable. See 78 FR 62018 (October 11, 2013).

(1) A bank's tier 1 and tier 2 capital calculated under the OCC's risk-based capital standards set forth in 12 CFR part 3, as applicable, as reported in the bank's Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income (Call Report) as filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus

(2) The balance of a bank's allowance for loan and lease losses not included in the bank's tier 2 capital, for purposes of the calculation of risk-based capital described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, as reported in the bank's Call Report.

PART 46—ANNUAL STRESS TEST28. The authority citation for part 46 continues to read as follows:Authority:

§ 46.4 [Amended]29. Section 46.4(c) is amended by removing the phrase “3.12, as appropriate” and adding “3.404” in its place.PART 116—APPLICATION PROCESSING PROCEDURES30. The authority citation for part 116 continues to read as follows:Authority:

§ 116.5 [Amended]31. Section 116.5(f) is amended by removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable” in its place.PART 143—FEDERAL MUTUAL SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS—INCORPORATION, ORGANIZATION, AND CONVERSION32. The authority citation for part 143 continues to read as follows:Authority:

§ 143.3 [Amended]33. Section 143.3(c)(2)(iii) is amended by removing the phrase “12 CFR parts 165 and 167” and adding the phrase “12 CFR parts 3, 6, 165, and 167, as applicable” in its place.PART 145—FEDERAL SAVINGS MUTUAL SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS—CHARTER AND BYLAWS34. The authority citation for part 145 continues to read as follows:Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1828, 5412(b)(2)(B).

§ 145.93 [Amended]35. Section 145.93(b)(3)(i) is amended by removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable” in its place.§ 145.95 [Amended]36. Section 145.95(b)(1)(i) is amended by:i. Removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable” in its place;ii. Removing the phrase “§ 165.4(b)(2) of this chapter,” and adding the phrase “12 CFR 6.4,” in its place; andiii. Removing the phrase “§ 165.4(b)(3) of this chapter,” and adding the phrase “12 CFR 6.4,” in its place.PART 159—SUBORDINATE ORGANIZATIONS37. The authority citation for part 159 continues to read as follows:Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1828, 5412(b)(2)(B).

§ 159.3 [Amended]38. Section 159.3 is amended by:i. In paragraph 159.3(j) removing the phrase “(part 167 of this chapter)” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable” in its place; andii. In paragraph 159.3(j)(2) removing the phrase “(part 167 of this chapter)” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable” in its place.§ 159.13 [Amended]39. Section 159.13(c) is amended by removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable” in its place.PART 160—LENDING AND INVESTMENT40. The authority citation for part 160 continues to read as follows:Authority:

§ 160.100 [Amended]41. Section 160.100 is amended by removing the phrase “12 CFR 167.1” and adding the phrase “12 CFR 3.22(a)(8)(iv) or 167.1, as applicable” in its place.42. Section 160.101 is amended by revising footnote 2 to read as follows:Appendix to § 160.101 —Interagency Guidelines for Real Estate Lending Policies

2 For the state member banks, the term “total capital” means “total risk-based capital” as defined in Appendix A to 12 CFR part 208. For insured state non-member banks, “total capital” refers to that term described in table I of Appendix A to 12 CFR part 325. For national banks, the term “total capital” is defined at 12 CFR 3.2(e). For savings associations, the term “total capital” as described in part 167 of this chapter.

The cross-references in the first paragraph of this footnote were originally adopted in an interagency rulemaking and are out of date as a result of revisions to capital rules implementing the Basel III Capital Framework. See 57 FR 63889 (December 31, 1992). For national banks and Federal savings associations, the term “total capital” is defined at 12 CFR 3.2, 3.2(e), or 167.5, as applicable. See 78 FR 62018 (October 11, 2013).

PART 161—DEFINITION FOR REGULATIONS AFFECTING ALL SAVINGS ASSOCIATIONS43. The authority citation for part 161 continues to read as follows:Authority:

12 U.S.C. 1462, 1462a, 1463, 1464, 1467a, 5412(b)(2)(B).

§ 161.55 [Amended]44. Section 161.55(c) is amended by removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable” in its place.PART 163—SAVINGS ASSOCIATION OPERATIONS45. The authority citation for part 163 continues to read as follows:Authority:

§ 163.74 [Amended]46. Section 163.74 is amended by:i. In paragraph (i)(2)(iv) removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter if a Federal savings association or 12 CFR part 390, subpart Z if a state savings association” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable, if a Federal savings association, or 12 CFR part 324 or part 390, subpart Z, as applicable, if a state savings association” in its place; andii. In paragraph (i)(2)(v) removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter if a Federal savings association or 12 CFR part 390, subpart Z if a state savings association” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable, if a Federal savings association, or 12 CFR part 324 or part 390, subpart Z, as applicable, if a state savings association” in its place.§ 163.80 [Amended]47. Section 163.80(e)(1) is amended by:i. Removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable” in its place; andii. Removing the phrase “12 CFR part 390, subpart Z” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 324 or part 390, subpart Z, as applicable,”.48. Section 163.81 is revised to read as follows:§ 163.81 Inclusion of subordinated debt securities and mandatorily redeemable preferred stock as supplementary (tier 2) capital.

(a) Applicability and scope. (1) Applicability. (i) For purposes of this section, an advanced approaches savings association means a Federal savings association that is subject to 12 CFR part 3, subpart E, and a non-advanced approaches savings association means a Federal savings association that is not subject to 12 CFR part 3, subpart E.

(ii) An advanced approaches savings association, beginning on March 31, 2014, must comply with paragraphs (h) through (q) of this section.

(iii) A non-advanced approaches savings association, prior to January 1, 2015, must comply with paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section. Beginning on January 1, 2015, a non-advanced approaches savings association must comply with paragraphs (h) through (q) of this section.

(2) Scope. Prior to January 1, 2015, a non-advanced approaches savings association must comply with paragraphs (a) through (g) of this section in order to include subordinated debt securities or mandatorily redeemable preferred stock (“covered securities”) in supplementary capital (tier 2 capital) under part 167 of this chapter. If a savings association does not include covered securities in supplementary capital, it is not required to comply with this section. Covered securities not included in tier 2 capital are subject to the requirements of § 163.80.

(b) Application and notice procedures. (1) A Federal savings association must file an application or notice under 12 CFR part 116, subpart A seeking the OCC's approval of, or non-objection to, the inclusion of covered securities in supplementary capital. The savings association may file its application or notice before or after it issues covered securities, but may not include covered securities in supplementary capital until the OCC approves the application or does not object to the notice.

(2) A savings association must also comply with the securities offering rules at 12 CFR part 197 by filing an offering circular for a proposed issuance of covered securities, unless the offering qualifies for an exemption under that part.

(c) Securities requirements. To be included in supplementary capital, covered securities must meet the following requirements:

(1) Form. (i) Each certificate evidencing a covered security must:

(A) Bear the following legend on its face, in bold type: “This security is not a savings account or deposit and it is not insured by the United States or any agency or fund of the United States;”

(B) State that the security is subordinated on liquidation, as to principal, interest, and premium, to all claims against the savings association that have the same priority as savings accounts or a higher priority;

(C) State that the security is not secured by the savings association's assets or the assets of any affiliate of the savings association. An affiliate means any person or company which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the savings association;

(D) State that the security is not eligible collateral for a loan by the savings association;

(E) State the prohibition on the payment of dividends or interest at 12 U.S.C. 1828(b) and, in the case of subordinated debt securities, state the prohibition on the payment of principal and interest at 12 U.S.C. 1831o(h), 12 CFR 3.11, and any other relevant restrictions;

(F) For subordinated debt securities, state or refer to a document stating the terms under which the savings association may prepay the obligation; and

(G) State or refer to a document stating that the savings association must obtain OCC's approval before the voluntary prepayment of principal on subordinated debt securities, the acceleration of payment of principal on subordinated debt securities, or the voluntary redemption of mandatorily redeemable preferred stock (other than scheduled redemptions), if the savings association is undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, or critically undercapitalized as described in § 6.4 of this chapter, fails to meet the regulatory capital requirements at 12 CFR part 167, or would fail to meet any of these standards following the payment.

(ii) A Federal savings association must include such additional statements as the OCC may prescribe for certificates, purchase agreements, indentures, and other related documents.

(2) Maturity requirements. Covered securities must have an original weighted average maturity or original weighted average period to required redemption of at least five years.

(3) Mandatory prepayment. Subordinated debt securities and related documents may not provide events of default or contain other provisions that could result in a mandatory prepayment of principal, other than events of default that:

(i) Arise from the Federal savings association's failure to make timely payment of interest or principal;

(ii) Arise from its failure to comply with reasonable financial, operating, and maintenance covenants of a type that are customarily included in indentures for publicly offered debt securities; or

(iii) Relate to bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, or similar events.

(4) Indenture. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section, a Federal savings association must use an indenture for subordinated debt securities. If the aggregate amount of subordinated debt securities publicly offered (excluding sales in a non-public offering as defined in 12 CFR 197.4) and sold in any consecutive 12-month or 36-month period exceeds $5,000,000 or $10,000,000 respectively (or such lesser amount that the Securities and Exchange Commission shall establish by rule or regulation under 15 U.S.C. 77ddd), the indenture must provide for the appointment of a trustee other than the savings association or an affiliate of the savings association (as defined in subsection (c)(1)(i)(C) of this section) and for collective enforcement of the security holders' rights and remedies.

(ii) A Federal savings association is not required to use an indenture if the subordinated debt securities are sold only to accredited investors, as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. 77d(6). A savings association must have an indenture that meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section in place before any debt securities for which an exemption from the indenture requirement is claimed, are transferred to any non-accredited investor. If a savings association relies on this exemption from the indenture requirement, it must place a legend on the debt securities indicating that an indenture must be in place before the debt securities are transferred to any non-accredited investor.

(d) Review by the OCC. (1) The OCC will review notices and applications under 12 CFR part 116, subpart E.

(2) In reviewing notices and applications under this section, the OCC will consider whether:

(i) The issuance of the covered securities is authorized under applicable laws and regulations and is consistent with the savings association's charter and bylaws.

(ii) The savings association is at least adequately capitalized under § 6.4 of this chapter and meets the regulatory capital requirements at part 167 of this chapter.

(iii) The savings association is or will be able to service the covered securities.

(iv) The covered securities are consistent with the requirements of this section.

(vi) The OCC has no objection to the issuance based on the savings association's overall policies, condition, and operations.

(3) The OCC's approval or non-objection is conditioned upon no material changes to the information disclosed in the application or notice submitted to the OCC. The OCC may impose such additional requirements or conditions as it may deem necessary to protect purchasers, the savings association, the OCC, or the Deposit Insurance Fund.

(e) Amendments. If a Federal savings association amends the covered securities or related documents following the completion of the OCC's review, it must obtain the OCC's approval or non-objection under this section before it may include the amended securities in supplementary capital.

(f) Sale of covered securities. The Federal savings association must complete the sale of covered securities within one year after the OCC's approval or non-objection under this section. A savings association may request an extension of the offering period by filing a written request with the OCC. The savings association must demonstrate good cause for the extension and file the request at least 30 days before the expiration of the offering period or any extension of the offering period.

(g) Reports. A Federal savings association must file the following information with the OCC within 30 days after the savings association completes the sale of covered securities includable as supplementary capital. If the savings association filed its application or notice following the completion of the sale, it must submit this information with its application or notice:

(1) A written report indicating the number of purchasers, the total dollar amount of securities sold, the net proceeds received by the savings association from the issuance, and the amount of covered securities, net of all expenses, to be included as supplementary capital;

(2) Three copies of an executed form of the securities and a copy of any related documents governing the issuance or administration of the securities; and

(3) A certification by the appropriate executive officer indicating that the savings association complied with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with the offering, issuance, and sale of the securities.

(h) Scope. (1) Beginning March 31, 2014, an advanced approaches savings association must comply with paragraphs (h) through (q) of this section in order to include subordinated debt securities or mandatorily redeemable preferred stock (“covered securities”) in tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20(d) and to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital.

(2) Beginning January 1, 2015, a non-advanced approaches savings association must comply with paragraphs (h) through (q) of this section in order to include covered securities in tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20(d) and to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital. A Federal savings association that does not include covered securities in tier 2 capital is not required to comply with this section. Covered securities not included in tier 2 capital are subject to the requirements of § 163.80.

(3) For purposes of this section, mandatorily redeemable preferred stock means mandatorily redeemable preferred stock that was issued before July 23, 1985 or issued pursuant to regulations and memoranda of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and approved in writing by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation for inclusion as regulatory capital before or after issuance.

(i) Prior approval required for prepayment of covered securities included in tier 2 capital. A Federal savings association must obtain prior OCC approval to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital. For purposes of this requirement, prepayment includes acceleration of a covered security, repurchase of a covered security, redemption of a covered security prior to maturity, and exercising a call option in connection with a covered security.

(j) Application and notice procedures. (1) Application or notice to include covered securities in tier 2 capital. (i) A Federal savings association must file an application or notice under 12 CFR part 116, subpart A seeking the OCC's approval of, or non-objection to, the inclusion of covered securities in tier 2 capital. The savings association may file its application or notice before or after it issues covered securities, but may not include covered securities in tier 2 capital until the OCC approves the application or does not object to the notice.

(ii) A savings association also must comply with the securities offering rules at 12 CFR part 197 by filing an offering circular for a proposed issuance of covered securities, unless the offering qualifies for an exemption under that part.

(2) Application to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital. (i) General. A Federal savings association must file an application under 12 CFR part 116, subpart A seeking the OCC's prior approval to prepay covered securities included in tier 2 capital. The filing is subject to standard treatment under 12 CFR part 116, subpart E.

(ii) Prepayment in the form of a call option. (A) In addition to the information required by paragraph (j)(2) of this section, the application must include:

(1) A statement explaining why the Federal savings association believes that following the proposed prepayment the savings association would continue to hold an amount of capital commensurate with its risk; or

(2) A description of the replacement capital instrument that meets the criteria for tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20, including the amount of such instrument, and the time frame for issuance.

(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (j)(1)(i) of this section, if the OCC conditions approval of prepayment in the form of a call option on a requirement that a Federal savings association must replace the covered security with a covered security of an equivalent amount that satisfies the requirements for a tier 1 or tier 2 instrument, the savings association must file an application to issue the replacement covered security and must receive prior OCC approval.

(k) General requirements. A covered security issued under this section must satisfy the requirements for tier 2 capital in 12 CFR 3.20(d).

(l) Securities requirements for inclusion in tier 2 capital. To be included in tier 2 capital, covered securities must satisfy the requirements in 12 CFR 3.20(d). In addition, such covered securities must meet the following requirements:

(1) Form. (i) Each certificate evidencing a covered security must:

(A) Bear the following legend on its face, in bold type: “This security is not a savings account or deposit and it is not insured by the United States or any agency or fund of the United States;”

(B) State that the security is subordinated on liquidation, as to principal, interest, and premium, to all claims against the savings association that have the same priority as savings accounts or a higher priority;

(C) State that the security is not secured by the savings association's assets or the assets of any affiliate of the savings association. An affiliate means any person or company which controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the savings association;

(D) State that the security is not eligible collateral for a loan by the savings association;

(E) State the prohibition on the payment of dividends or interest at 12 U.S.C. 1828(b) and, in the case of subordinated debt securities, state the prohibition on the payment of principal and interest at 12 U.S.C. 1831o(h), 12 CFR 3.11, and any other relevant restrictions;

(F) For subordinated debt securities, state or refer to a document stating the terms under which the savings association may prepay the obligation; and

(G) Where applicable, state or refer to a document stating that the savings association must obtain OCC's prior approval before the acceleration of payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt securities, redemption of subordinated debt securities prior to maturity, repurchase of subordinated debt securities, or exercising a call option in connection with a subordinated debt security.

(ii) A Federal savings association must include such additional statements as the OCC may prescribe for certificates, purchase agreements, indentures, and other related documents.

(2) Indenture. (i) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(4)(ii) of this section, a Federal savings association must use an indenture for subordinated debt securities. If the aggregate amount of subordinated debt securities publicly offered (excluding sales in a non-public offering as defined in 12 CFR 197.4) and sold in any consecutive 12-month or 36-month period exceeds $5,000,000 or $10,000,000 respectively (or such lesser amount that the Securities and Exchange Commission shall establish by rule or regulation under 15 U.S.C. 77ddd), the indenture must provide for the appointment of a trustee other than the savings association or an affiliate of the savings association (as defined in subsection (c)(1)(i)(C) of this section) and for collective enforcement of the security holders' rights and remedies.

(ii) A Federal savings association is not required to use an indenture if the subordinated debt securities are sold only to accredited investors, as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. 77d(6). A savings association must have an indenture that meets the requirements of paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section in place before any debt securities for which an exemption from the indenture requirement is claimed, are transferred to any non-accredited investor. If a savings association relies on this exemption from the indenture requirement, it must place a legend on the debt securities indicating that an indenture must be in place before the debt securities are transferred to any non-accredited investor.

(m) Review by the OCC. (1) The OCC will review notices and applications under 12 CFR part 116, subpart E.

(2) In reviewing notices and applications under this section, the OCC will consider whether:

(i) The issuance of the covered securities is authorized under applicable laws and regulations and is consistent with the savings association's charter and bylaws;

(ii) The savings association is at least adequately capitalized under § 6.4 of this chapter and meets the regulatory capital requirements at 12 CFR 3.10;

(iii) The savings association is or will be able to service the covered securities;

(iv) The covered securities are consistent with the requirements of this section;

(v) The covered securities and related transactions sufficiently transfer risk from the Deposit Insurance Fund; and

(vi) The OCC has no objection to the issuance based on the savings association's overall policies, condition, and operations.

(3) The OCC's approval or non-objection is conditioned upon no material changes to the information disclosed in the application or notice submitted to the OCC. The OCC may impose such additional requirements or conditions as it may deem necessary to protect purchasers, the savings association, the OCC, or the Deposit Insurance Fund.

(n) Amendments. If a Federal savings association amends the covered securities or related documents following the completion of the OCC's review, it must obtain the OCC's approval or non-objection under this section before it may include the amended securities in tier 2 capital.

(o) Sale of covered securities. The Federal savings association must complete the sale of covered securities within one year after the OCC's approval or non-objection under this section. A savings association may request an extension of the offering period by filing a written request with the OCC. The savings association must demonstrate good cause for the extension and file the request at least 30 days before the expiration of the offering period or any extension of the offering period.

(p) Issuance of a replacement regulatory capital instrument in connection with exercising a call option. Pursuant to 12 CFR 3.20(d)(1)(v)(C), the OCC may require a Federal savings association seeking prior approval to exercise a call option in connection with a covered security included in tier 2 capital to issue a replacement covered security of an equivalent amount that qualifies as tier 1 or tier 2 capital under 12 CFR 3.20. If the OCC imposes such a requirement, the savings association must complete the sale of such covered security prior to, or immediately after, the prepayment.1

(q) Reports. A Federal savings association must file the following information with the OCC within 30 days after the savings association completes the sale of covered securities includable as tier 2 capital. If the savings association filed its application or notice following the completion of the sale, it must submit this information with its application or notice:

(1) A written report indicating the number of purchasers, the total dollar amount of securities sold, the net proceeds received by the savings association from the issuance, and the amount of covered securities, net of all expenses, to be included as tier 2 capital;

(2) Three copies of an executed form of the securities and a copy of any related documents governing the issuance or administration of the securities; and

(3) A certification by the appropriate executive officer indicating that the savings association complied with all applicable laws and regulations in connection with the offering, issuance, and sale of the securities.

§ 163.141 [Amended]49. Section 163.141 is amended by:i. In paragraph (b) removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable” in its place; andii. In paragraph (d) removing the phrase “§ 165.4(b)(1) of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR 6.4” in its place.§ 163.142 [Amended]50. Section 163.142 is amended by:i. In the definition of “Affiliate”, removing the phrase “§ 563.41(b) until superseded by” and adding after the phrase “with affiliates”, the phrase “, 12 CFR part 223 (Regulation W)”.ii. In the definition for “Capital”, removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable” in its place.§ 163.143 [Amended]51. Section 163.143 is amended by:i. In paragraph (a)(3) by removing the phrase “§ 165.4(b)(2) of this chapter,” and adding the phrase “12 CFR 6.4” in its place; andii. In paragraph (b)(1) removing the phrase “§ 165.4(b)(1),” and adding the phrase “12 CFR 6.4,” in its place; andiii. In paragraph (b)(2) removing the phrase “under part 167 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable” in its place.§ 163.146 [Amended]52. Section 163.146(a) is amended by removing the phrase “§ 165.4(b) of this chapter,” and adding the phrase “12 CFR 6.4” in its place.§ 163.560 [Amended]53. Section 163.560 is amended by:i. In paragraph (a)(1) removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter,” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable,” in its place; andii. In paragraph (a)(3) removing the phrase “part 165 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 6” in its place.PART 192—CONVERSIONS FROM MUTUAL TO STOCK FORM54. The authority citation for part 192 continues to read as follows:Authority:

§ 192.200 [Amended]55. Section 192.200(a)(2) is amended by removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3, part 324, or part 390, subpart Z, as applicable” in its place.§ 192.500 [Amended]56. Section 192.500 is amended by:i. In paragraph (a)(12), removing the phrase “§ 165.4 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR 6.4 or 324.403, as applicable” in its place.ii. In paragraph (a)(12), removing the phrase “§ 165.7 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 6, subpart B or 12 CFR 308.201, as applicable” in its place.§ 192.520 [Amended]57. Section 192.520(b) is amended by removing the phrase “part 167 of this chapter” and adding the phrase “12 CFR part 3 or part 167, as applicable” in its place.Dated: February 24, 2014.Thomas J. Curry,Comptroller of the Currency.[FR Doc. 2014-04331 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4810-33-PDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONFederal Aviation Administration14 CFR Part 71[Docket No. FAA-2013-0777; Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-16]Establishment of Class E Airspace; Eagle, AKAGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

This action establishes Class E airspace at Eagle Airport, Eagle, AK. Controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate aircraft using the new Area Navigation (RNAV) Global Positioning System (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. This action enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations at the airport. This action also makes a minor correction to the airspace's vertical dimensions, and corrects the Docket Numbers in the Addresses section.

DATES:

Effective date, 0901 UTC, May 29, 2014. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

On October 31, 2013, the FAA published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish controlled airspace at Eagle Airport, Eagle, AK (78 FR 65238). Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to publication the FAA's Aeronautical Products discovered the legal description did not contain the statement that the airspace begins at 700 feet above the surface. The Docket Numbers entered in error in the ADDRESSES section also are corrected.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9X dated August 7, 2013, and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in that Order.

The Rule

This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 2.5-mile radius of Eagle Airport, Eagle, AK, with a segment extending from the 2.5-mile radius to 8.5 miles west of the airport. Controlled airspace is needed to accommodate the new RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approaches and departures developed for the airport and enhances the safety and management of aircraft operations. This action adds a statement to the regulatory text to include that airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface. Additionally, the Docket numbers in the Addresses section are changed from FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-0017; Airspace Docket No. 13-AAL-1, to FAA Docket No. FAA-2013-0777; Airspace Docket No. 12-AAL-16. The Docket numbers in the Title block are correct. Except for administrative changes, and the changes listed above, this rule is the same as that proposed in the NPRM.

The FAA has determined this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 discusses the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes controlled airspace at Eagle Airport, Eagle, AK.

Environmental Review

The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 311a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as follows:Authority:

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 2.5-mile radius of Eagle, Airport and within 2.5 miles each side of the 290° radial extending from the 2.5-mile radius to 8.5 miles west of the airport.

This direct final rule makes nonsubstantive changes to correct citations and titles throughout. The revisions to this rule are part of NASA's retrospective plan under EO 13563 completed in August 2011. NASA's full plan can be accessed on the Agency's open Government Web site at http://www.nasa.gov/open/.

DATES:

This direct final rule is effective on April 29, 2014. Comments due on or before March 31, 2014. If adverse comments are received, NASA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES:

Comments must be identified with RINs 2700-AD95 and may be sent to NASA via the Federal E-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Please note that NASA will post all comments on the Internet with changes, including any personal information provided.

NASA has determined that this rulemaking meets the criteria for a direct final rule because it makes nonsubstantive changes to correct citations and titles. No opposition to the changes and no significant adverse comments are expected. However, if NASA receives significant adverse comments, it will withdraw this direct final rule by publishing a notice in the Federal Register. A significant adverse comment is one that explains: (1) Why the direct final rule is inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach; or (2) why the direct final rule will be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. In determining whether a comment necessitates withdrawal of this direct final rule, NASA will consider whether it warrants a substantive response in a notice and comment process.

Background

Subpart 5 of part 1204, promulgated March 13, 1995 [30 FR 3378], establishes delegations and designations for NASA officials and other Government agencies acting on behalf of the Agency to carry out functions related to real estate and related matters, granting easements, leaseholds, permits, and licenses in real property, executing certificates of full faith and credit, and taking actions on liquidated damage. Sections 1204.501, 1204.503-1204.504, 1204.509 will be amended to correct citations and titles.

Statutory Authority

The National Aeronautics and Space Act (the Space Act), 51 U.S.C. 20113 (a), authorizes the Administrator of NASA to make, promulgate, issue, rescind, and amend rules and regulations governing the manner of its operations and the exercise of the powers vested in it by law.

Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). EO 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has been designated as “not significant” under section 3(f) of EO 12866.

Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires an agency to prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis to be published at the time the proposed rule is published. This requirement does not apply if the agency “certifies that the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities” (5 U.S.C. 603). This rule removes one section from Title 14 of the CFR and, therefore, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

This direct final rule does not contain any information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Review Under EO 13132

EO 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) requires regulations be reviewed for Federalism effects on the institutional interest of states and local Governments and, if the effects are sufficiently substantial, preparation of the Federal assessment is required to assist senior policy makers. The amendments will not have any substantial direct effects on state and local Governments within the meaning of the EO. Therefore, no Federalism assessment is required.

List of subjects in 14 CFR Part 1204

Authority delegation.

Accordingly, under the authority of the National Aeronautics and Space Act, as amended, U.S.C. 20113, NASA amends 14 CFR part 1204 as follows:

PART 1204—ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY AND POLICY1. The authority citation for part 1204 continues to read as follows:Authority:

§ 1204.501 [Amended]2. Amend § 1204.501 by removing the word “Associate” and adding in its place the word “Assistant,” removing the words “Management Systems and Facilities” and adding in their place the words “Strategic Infrastructure,” and removing the words “Facilities Engineering” and adding in their place the words “Integrated Asset Management.”.§ 1204.503 [Amended]3. Amend § 1204.503 as follows:a. In paragraph (b), remove the word “Associate” and add in its place the word “Assistant,” remove the words “Management Systems and Facilities” and add in their place the words “Strategic Infrastructure,” and remove the words “Facilities Engineering” and add in its place the words “Integrated Asset Management.”b. In paragraph (e)(1), remove the words “The Directors of Field Installations” and add in their place the words “NASA Center Directors.”c. In paragraph (e)(2), remove the words “The Directors of Field Installations” and add in their place the words “NASA Center Directors” and remove the words “field installation” in the second occurrence and add in their place the word “Center.”d. In paragraph (f)(1), remove the words “Director of the Field Installation” and add in their place the words “Center Director.”e. In paragraphs (f)(3)(i)(D), remove the word “Associate” and add in its place the word “Assistant,” remove the words “Management Systems and Facilities” and add in their place the words “Strategic Infrastructure,” remove the words “Facilities Engineering” and add in their place the words “Integrated Asset Management,” and remove the words “Director of the Field Installation” and add in their place the words “Center Director.”f. In paragraph (f)(3)(ii), remove the word “Associate” and add in its place the word “Assistant,” remove the words “Management Systems and Facilities” and add in their place the words “Strategic Infrastructure,” remove the words “Facilities Engineering” and add in their place the words “Integrated Asset Management,” and remove the words “Director of the Field Installation” and add in their place the words “Center Director.”g. In paragraph (g), remove the words “Director of a Field Installation” and add in their place the words “Center Director,” remove the word “Associate” and add in its place the word “Assistant,” remove the words “Management Systems and Facilities” and add in their place the words “Strategic Infrastructure,” and remove the words “Facilities Engineering” and add in their place the words “Integrated Asset Management.”h. In paragraph (h), remove the words “Directors of Field Installations” and add in their place the words “Center Directors.”i. In paragraph (i), remove the words “Facilities Operations and Maintenance Branch (Code JXG)” and add in their place the words “Office of Strategic Infrastructure,” and remove the words “Facilities Engineering” and add in their place the words “Integrated Asset Management.”§ 1204.504 [Amended]4. Amend § 1204.504 as follows:a. In paragraph (a), remove the word “Associate” and add in its place the word “Assistant,” remove the words “Management Systems and Facilities” and add in their place the words “Strategic Infrastructure,” and add the words “and Real Property” before the word “Division.”b. In paragraph (d)(1), remove the words “The Directors of Field Installations” and add in their place the words “Center Directors,” remove the words “(i) excess within the meaning of 40 U.S.C. 472(c) or (ii),” and remove the words “NASA Management Instruction 9050.6, NASA Exchange Activities” and add in their place the words “NASA Policy Directive 9050.6, NASA Exchange and Morale Support Activities.”c. In paragraph (d)(2), remove the words “The Directors of Field Installations” and add in their place the words “Center Directors” and remove the words “Field Installation” and add in their place the words “NASA Center.”d. In paragraph (e)(1), remove the words “Director of the Field Installation” and add in their place the words “Center Director.”e. In paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(B), remove the word “Associate” and add in its place the word “Assistant, ” remove the words “Management Systems and Facilities” and add in their place the words “Strategic Infrastructure,” remove the words “Facilities Engineering” and add in their place the words “Integrated Asset Management,” and remove the words “Director of the Field Installation” and add in their place the words “Center Director.”f. In paragraph (e)(3)(iii), remove the word “Associate ” and add in its place the word “Assistant,” remove the words “Management Systems and Facilities” and add in their place the words “Strategic Infrastructure,” remove the words “Facilities Engineering” and add in their place the words “Integrated Asset Management,” and remove the words “Director of the Field Installation” and add in their place the words “Center Director.”g. In paragraph (f), remove the words “Director of a Field Installation” and add in their place the words “Center Director,” remove the words “Assistant” and add in its place the word “Associate,” remove the words “Management Systems and Facilities” and add in their place the words “Strategic Infrastructure,” remove the words “Facilities Engineering” and add in their place the words “Integrated Asset Management.”h. In paragraph (g), remove the words “the Directors of Field Installations” and add in their place the words “NASA Center Directors.”i. In paragraph (h), remove the words “Administrator, Facilities Operations and Maintenance Branch (Code JXG), Facilities Engineering Division, Assistant” and add in their place the words “Administration, Office of Strategic Infrastructure.”§ 1204.505 [Amended]5. In § 1204.505, amend paragraph (b) by removing the words “(Office of the Administrator section of NASA Form 955).”§ 1204.509 [Amended]6. In § 1204.509, amend paragraph (a) by removing the words “Director, Industrial Relations Office” and adding in their place the words “Assistant Administrator, Office of Strategic Infrastructure” and removing the misspelled word “Conract” and adding in its place the word “Contract.”Charles F. Bolden, Jr.,Administrator.[FR Doc. 2014-03295 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 7510-13-PDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITYCoast Guard33 CFR Part 117[USCG-2013-1055]Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Long Island, New York Inland Waterway From East Rockaway Inlet to Shinnecock Canal, Hempstead, NYAGENCY:

Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION:

Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

SUMMARY:

The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge across the Sloop Channel, mile 15.4, at Jones Beach, New York. The deviation is necessary to facilitate public safety during the annual Jones Beach Air Show over Memorial Day weekend. This deviation allows the bridge to remain in the closed position for an hour and a half on Saturday and Sunday afternoon.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 2:30 p.m. on May 24, 2014 through 4 p.m. on May 25, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-1055] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, judy.k.leung-yee@uscg.mil, or (212) 668-7165. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Wantagh State Parkway Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 16 feet at mean high water and 20 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.5.

The waterway has seasonal recreational vessels and fishing vessels of various sizes. We contacted the New York Marine Trades Association and no objections were received.

The New York Department of Transportation requested a temporary deviation to facilitate public safety by allowing the anticipated large volume of vehicular traffic to safely evacuate the area following the annual Jones Beach Air Show on Saturday, May 24, 2014 and Sunday, May 25, 2014, over Memorial Day weekend.

Under this temporary deviation the Wantagh State Parkway Bridge at mile 15.4, across Sloop Channel, may remain in the closed position between 2:30 p.m. and 4 p.m. on Saturday, May 24, 2014 and Sunday, May 25, 2014.

Vessels that can pass under the bridge during the closed periods without a bridge opening may do so at all times. There are no alternate routes for vessel traffic.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the operating schedule that governs the State Route 23 (SR 23) vertical lift span bridge, also known as the Judge Perez Bridge, across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers Alternate Route), mile 3.8, at Belle Chasse, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. This deviation is necessary to provide for the safe movement of vehicular traffic during major plant reconstruction on one side of the waterway and the resulting change in work schedule and increase in workforce transiting the bridge. This deviation allows the bridge to remain temporarily closed to navigation for an additional one hour in the evening during weekdays for two months.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 5, 2014 through 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0065] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch, Coast Guard; telephone 504-671-2128, email David.M.Frank@uscg.mil. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A member of the Louisiana State Legislature requested a temporary deviation from the operating schedule on the SR 23 vertical lift span bridge, also known as the Judge Perez Bridge, across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers Alternate Route), mile 3.8, at Belle Chasse, Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana. The deviation requested allows the bridge to remain closed to navigation for an additional one hour in the evening, Monday through Friday, for two months.

The Louisiana Legislature makes this request to support and assist in the safe movement of increased vehicular traffic across the bridge during the evening hours, resulting from a change in the work schedule and increased work force related to a major plant reconstruction at the Conoco/Phillips Refinery in Alliance. This temporary deviation will also help to minimize the effects of the additional traffic on local residents.

Presently, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.451(b), the draw shall open on signal; except that, from 6 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels.

This temporary deviation allows the vertical lift bridge to remain closed to navigation for one additional hour in the afternoon to extend the afternoon curfew hours from 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday from Wednesday, March 5, 2014 through Wednesday, April 30, 2014. In case of an emergency, the bridge will be able to open for the passage of vessels.

The SR 23 vertical lift span drawbridge across the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Algiers Alternate Route), mile 3.8, at Belle Chasse, Louisiana has a vertical clearance of 40 feet above mean high water in the closed-to-navigation position and 100 feet above mean high water in the open-to-navigation position. Navigation on the waterway consists primarily of tugs with tows, commercial fishing vessels, and occasional recreational craft. Mariners may use the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (Harvey Canal) to avoid unnecessary delays. The Coast Guard has coordinated this closure with the Gulf Intracoastal Canal Association (GICA). The GICA representative indicated that the vessel operators will be able to schedule transits through the bridge such that operations will not significantly be hindered. Thus, it has been determined that this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35, the draw bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective period of this temporary deviation.

This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge, across Newtown Creek, mile 1.3, at New York City, New York. The deviation is necessary to facilitate bridge painting operations at the bridge. This temporary deviation authorizes the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge to remain in the closed position for up to six consecutive days followed by four consecutive days of full operation at various times during the effective period of this deviation.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from May 1, 2014 through September 30, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2014-0024] is available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140, on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this temporary deviation, call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast Guard District, judy.k.leung-yee@uscg.mil, or (212) 668-7165. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Greenpoint Avenue Bridge, across Newtown Creek, mile 1.3, at New York City, New York, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 26 feet at mean high water and 31 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.801(g).

The waterway is transited by commercial and seasonal recreational vessels of various sizes.

The bridge owner, New York City Department of Transportation, requested approval to allow the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge to remain in the closed position for up to six consecutive days followed by four days of full operation to facilitate bridge sandblasting and painting operations. The bridge painting closures can only be implemented between May and September in order to minimize impacts to commercial barge traffic carrying home heating oil upstream. The Coast Guard contacted all known commercial waterway users regarding this deviation and no objections were received.

Under this temporary deviation the draw of the Greenpoint Avenue Bridge may remain in the closed position at various times during this deviation for up to six consecutive days followed by four days of full bridge operation.

Each six day closure will be announced two weeks in advance in the Local Notice to Mariners (LNTM) along with a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNTM) to help facilitate marine transportation system planning.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Coast Guard is establishing a permanent regulated navigation area (RNA) in the waters off Southern Oahu, Hawaii, enforcement of which will take place only when a tsunami warning is issued for the Hawaiian Islands by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. Tsunami warnings require the evacuation of a large number of vessels from their respective harbors. Following the evacuation, these vessels must remain offshore until the emergency situation has passed and the harbors have been deemed safe for reentry. Past tsunami warnings have created potentially dangerous offshore traffic congestion between commercial and recreational vessel traffic. Because of this, designated vessel traffic staging areas are necessary for a safe and orderly evacuation of Southern Oahu ports.

DATES:

This rule is effective March 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket USCG-2012-0080. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the docket number in the “SEARCH” box and click “SEARCH.” Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Scott Whaley of the United States Coast Guard Sector Honolulu at 808-522-8264 ext. 3352 or Scott.O.Whaley@uscg.mil, respectively. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone (202) 366-9826.

The Coast Guard collaborated with the Hawaii Ocean Safety Team, the Industry Advisory Board and other industry partners in the initial development of this rule. On May 14, 2013, the Coast Guard published an NPRM in the Federal Register (78 FR 28170). The Coast Guard received a number of comments which, after careful consideration, prompted the Coast Guard to make significant changes to the originally proposed rule. On October 3, 2013, the Coast Guard published an SNPRM in the Federal Register (78 FR 61223), under the same docket number, which reflected changes from the original rule proposed based on comments received on the NPRM. The Coast Guard received a total of one comment on the SNPRM. That comment, along with the comments received during the initial NPRM state, are posted, without change, at http://www.regulations.gov. To view the comments in full go to http://www.regulations.gov, insert USCG-2012-0080 in the “SEARCH” box, and then click “SEARCH.” The following link will take you directly to the docket: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=USCG-2012-0080.

B. Basis and Purpose

The purpose of this rule is to provide vessels with an off-shore area to loiter in the event of a tsunami warning for Southern Oahu. In the event of a tsunami threat, both recreational vessels and commercial vessels may desire or be mandated to leave port to avoid potential damage to their vessel and the port. The creation of an off-shore area for vessels to loiter in an organized fashion is important to decrease confusion and unsafe conditions during the tsunami threat. This regulated navigation area is also crafted to decrease potentially dangerous off-shore traffic congestion between commercial and recreational vessel traffic by separating these classes of vessels.

The Coast Guard has met with industry partners, commercial mariners, and recreational boaters in the creation of this rule.

The statutory basis for this rulemaking is 33 U.S.C. 1231, which gives the Coast Guard, under a delegation from the Secretary of Homeland Security, regulatory authority to enforce the Ports and Waterways Safety Act. A regulated navigation area is a water area within a defined boundary for which regulations for vessels navigating within the area have been established to mitigate potentially hazardous conditions, such as vessel congestion, deemed to exist in that area. The purpose of this rulemaking is to provide greater safety for vessels and maritime commerce in the event of a tsunami threat.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

The Coast Guard received a total of one comment on the SNPRM published on October 3, 2013, in the Federal Register.

The commenter suggested changes to the rule to more accurately reflect use of the 50-fathom curve as a point of reference. The coordinates of the RNA and staging areas have been modified to reflect a more accurate use of the 50-fathom line as the northern-most border for the RNA. Other non-substantive edits, intending only to simplify the language, were made to the final rule.

D. Discussion of the Final Rule

Honolulu Harbor has only one entrance for large commercial vessels and is the principle harbor of Hawaii's hub and spoke maritime commerce system. If, during an emergency, a marine incident were to occur off the southern shore of Oahu, especially near the entrance of Honolulu Harbor, the results could be devastating to Hawaii's economy and the maritime commerce system and the constituencies that rely heavily upon the system's viability.

Earthquakes off Chile and Japan in February 2010 and March 2011, respectively, resulted in tsunami threats to the Main Hawaiian Islands. These incidents emphasized the need to establish heightened safety measures, to ensure an orderly and organized evacuation plan, in order to protect the infrastructure of the southern coast of Oahu, Hawaii, including Honolulu Harbor.

In response to this risk, the Coast Guard is establishing a regulated navigation area designated as the Southern Oahu Tsunami Evacuation zone.

In the event of a tsunami warning, the Coast Guard Captain of the Port (COTP) for Honolulu will notify the public that an enforcement period is in effect for the duration of the emergency. At the conclusion of the threat, the COTP will notify the public when the RNA enforcement period is suspended or terminated. The COTP will use all available means to notify the public about the enforcement and suspension of the RNA. Methods of communication include, but are not limited to, radio broadcasts via VHF-HF, Marine Safety Information Broadcasts (MSIB's), telephone and email.

During the enforcement period, the COTP intends to deploy Coast Guard assets, if feasible, to ensure participating commercial and recreational vessels move to and stay within separate staging areas. Paragraph (b)(5) of § 165.1413 identifies an exclusionary area that will separate staging areas. This exclusionary area will measure 3.7 nautical miles long by one (1) nautical mile wide, centering lengthwise and along a line running seaward at 208 degrees southwest of the Honolulu Harbor Range light. When the RNA is being enforced, all vessels are required to remain outside the exclusionary area except for during transiting.

Three staging areas, outside of the exclusionary area, will be established. There will be one recreational vessel staging area to the west of the exclusionary area. This recreational staging area is intended for recreational vessels departing from and returning to the Keehi Lagoon area or other areas to the west of Honolulu Harbor. The staging area east of the exclusionary area is divided into two areas; a commercial staging area and a second recreational vessel staging area. This eastern recreational vessel staging area is intended for use by recreational vessels departing from and returning to the Ala Wai Small Boat harbor and Kewalo Basin. Recreational vessels can use either the east or west staging area. The mariner's decision for which staging area to use should be based on which staging area is the easiest to transit to so as to avoid crossing the path of other vessels. The commercial vessel staging area is intended for use by all commercial vessels departing from and returning to Kewalo Basin and Honolulu Harbor.

All vessels wishing to remain within this RNA while it is being enforced must stage in accordance with this rule. However, there is no requirement that any vessel, commercial or recreational, must remain in the RNA.

A graphic of the regulated navigation area is posted on the United States Coast Guard Sector Honolulu Homeport Web page (https://homeport.uscg.mil/mycg/portal/ep/portDirectory.do?tabId=1&cotpId=27) under the Waterways Management tab and is also posted in the docket for this rulemaking. The graphic shows how we expect to separate commercial and recreational vessels when the RNA is being enforced, but under actual enforcement conditions local commanders may vary their response as conditions warrant.

E. Regulatory Analyses

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, because it would have an effect on the regulated public only in the rare circumstances of a tsunami threat, while at other times vessels will be able to transit the area freely. Therefore, it does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.

2. Impact on Small Entities

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit and remain in the exclusionary zone during a tsunami threat, or owners or operators of vessels otherwise intending to operate in a fashion not compatible with this rule. This rule would not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because the RNA would only be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, when a tsunami warning has been issued by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, above.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

A final rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

This rule will not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

This action is not a “significant energy action” under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph (34)(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion determination are available in this docket.

(a) Location. The following area is a regulated navigation area (RNA): All waters of the Pacific Ocean south of the southern side of Oahu, HI extending from the surface of the water to the ocean floor, and is bound by a line connecting the following points: 21°17′14″ N, 157°55′34″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°55′34″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°48′20″ W; 21°14′14″ N, 157°48′20″ W thence westward along the 50-fathom line to the beginning point. These coordinates are based upon the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Coast Survey, Pacific Ocean, Oahu, Hawaii, chart 19357.

(b) Regulations. You may contact the Coast Guard on VHF Channel 16 (156.800 MHz) or at telephone number 808-842-2600, to obtain clarification on RNA transits and locations. Operations permitting, the Coast Guard plans to provide on-scene direction using Coast Guard patrol boats and assets. During the enforcement period persons and vessels wishing to remain inside the RNA must abide by the following stipulations:

(1) No person or vessel may enter into an exclusionary area 3.7 nautical miles long by 1 nautical mile wide, centered lengthwise and along a line running seaward at 208 degrees southwest of Honolulu Harbor Front Range Light, except to transit to or from the staging areas or other areas outside the zone. Loitering or lingering in the exclusionary zone is prohibited.

(2) The Western Recreational Vessel Staging area is bound by the following points: 21°17′14″ N, 157°55′34″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°55′34″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°55′17″ W; 21°16′46″ N, 157°53′23″ W and then along the 50-fathom line to the beginning point. This staging area is intended for recreational vessels departing from and returning to the Keehi Lagoon area.

(3) The Commercial Vessel Staging Area is bound by a line connecting the following points: 21°16′48″ N, 157°52′10″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°54′05″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°51′36″ W; 21°15′55″ N, 157°50′58″ W and then along the 50-fathom line to the beginning point. This staging area is intended for use by all commercial vessels intended to remain in the RNA during a tsunami treat.

(4) The Eastern Recreational Vessel Staging Area is bound by the following points: 21°15′55″ N, 157°50′58″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°51′36″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°48′20″ W; 21°14′14″ N, 157°48′20″ W and then along the 50-fathom line to the beginning point. The Commercial Vessel Staging Area borders this staging area's western edge. The dividing line between the Commercial Vessel Staging Area and the Eastern Recreational Vessel Staging Area can be determined visually. The private dayboards located in the Ala Wai Small Boat Harbor and the La Ronde Rotating Restaurant roof top restaurant form a natural range that mariners can use in daylight hours to gauge the eastern boundary of the Commercial Vessel Staging Area and the western boundary of the Eastern Recreational Vessel Staging Area. This eastern recreational staging area is intended for use by recreational vessels departing from and returning to the Ala Wai Small Boat harbor and Kewalo Basin.

(5) Located between the Western Recreational Vessel Staging Area and the Commercial Vessel Staging Area is an Exclusion Area. This area is bound by the following points: 21°16′46″ N, 157°53′23″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°55′17″ W; 21°13′30″ N, 157°54′05″ W; 21°16′48″ N, 157°52′10″ W and then along the 50-fathom line to the beginning point.

(6) All vessels staging in the RNA must be seaward of the 50-fathom (300 foot) line.

(c) Enforcement period. Paragraph (b) of this section will be enforced when a tsunami warning has been issued for the Hawaiian Islands by the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center. The COTP will notify the public of any enforcement, suspension of enforcement, or termination of enforcement through appropriate means to ensure the widest publicity, including the use of broadcast notice to mariners, notices of enforcement and press releases.

(d) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially approving and partially disapproving State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Utah on September 20, 1999. The September 20, 1999 submittal revised the numbering and format of the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) rules within Utah's SIP. In this action, EPA is acting on those rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal that still require EPA action. Specifically, EPA is approving R307-110-16, “Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride,” and disapproving R307-110-29, “Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program.” In conjunction with our disapproval of R307-110-29, we are also disapproving the Utah Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program, which Utah submitted as a revision to the SIP on February 6, 1996, and which was incorporated by reference in R307-110-29 as part of the September 20, 1999 submittal. This action is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES:

This final rule is effective March 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2013-0474. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information may not be publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

(iii) The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (coarse particulate matter).

(iv) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (fine particulate matter).

(v) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

(vi) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless the context indicates otherwise.

(vii) The initials UAC mean or refer to the Utah Administrative Code.

I. Background

Utah's September 20, 1999 submittal revised the numbering and format of the UAC rules within Utah's SIP. The purpose was to provide for a more consistent numbering system and a coherent structure allowing provisions to be located more easily within Utah's rules.

On February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679), we approved many of the re-numbered rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal, but we deferred action on others or explained why no action on the rules was necessary.1 In subsequent rulemaking actions, we acted on other rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal, or on later versions of the rules that superseded the version submitted on September 20, 1999.

On August 14, 2013, we proposed to act on those rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal that still required EPA action. See 78 FR 49400. Specifically, we proposed to approve R307-110-16, “Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride,” and we proposed to disapprove R307-110-29, “Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program.” In conjunction with our proposed disapproval of R307-110-29, we also proposed to disapprove the Utah Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program (Section XXI of the Utah SIP), which Utah submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on February 6, 1996 and which R307-110-29 of the September 20, 1999 submittal incorporated by reference.

Our August 14, 2013 notice of proposed rulemaking invited comment on our proposal and provided a 30-day comment period. The comment period ended on September 13, 2013. We received no comments. Accordingly, we are finalizing our actions as proposed.

In the docket for this final rule we have included a table that lists the rules from the September 20, 1999 submittal that are not addressed by today's action and explains why no action on such rules is required.

II. What action is EPA finalizing and why?A. R307-110-16, “Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride”

We are approving the renumbering of R307-110-16, “Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride.” This provision incorporates by reference Utah SIP Section IX, Part G, as amended by the Utah Air Quality Board on December 18, 1992, into the UAC.

In our October 13, 2005 proposed rule on Utah's September 20, 1999 submittal (70 FR 59681), we did not propose to act on the renumbering of R307-110-16. As our reason, we stated: “Utah repealed this rule from the federally approved SIP in their June 17, 1998 SIP submittal that EPA approved on May 20, 2002 (67 FR 35442).” (70 FR 59687) That statement was incorrect. The May 20, 2002 action did not remove R307-110-16 (under its previous numbering) or associated Utah SIP section IX, Part G from the SIP. Instead, that action removed R307-1-4.11, “Regulation for the Control of Fluorides from Existing Plants” from the SIP, in part based on the dismantling of the only facility to which the provision applied. In fact, on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744), we approved the renumbering of Utah SIP Section IX, Part G, and this section remains in the SIP. However, we have not acted on the corresponding renumbering of R307-110-16 in the September 20, 1999 submittal. As R307-110-16 merely incorporates by reference SIP Section IX, Part G, which itself is currently in the SIP, we are approving the renumbering of R307-110-16.

We are disapproving R307-110-29, “Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program.” R307-110-29 incorporated by reference the Utah Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program (Section XXI of the SIP), as adopted by the Utah Air Quality Board on July 12, 1995 (and submitted to EPA on February 6, 1996), which we have not acted on previously. In our October 13, 2005 notice of proposed rulemaking (70 FR 59681), we stated that we would not act to approve R307-110-29 because the rule incorporated by reference Utah's February 6, 1996 SIP submittal. We noted that we would address the February 6, 1996 SIP submittal at a later date (70 FR 59687). We restated our intentions in our final rule of February 14, 2006 (71 FR 7679) in which we noted that we would act on R307-110-29 when we acted on Utah's February 6, 1996 SIP submittal (71 FR 7681). With this final rule, we are disapproving the State's February 6, 1996 submittal of its Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program (see section II.C. below). Therefore, EPA is also disapproving R307-110-29 because it incorporates by reference the State's Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program that we are disapproving.

We are disapproving Utah's Diesel Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Program contained in Section XXI of the Utah SIP, which Utah submitted on February 6, 1996 (hereafter, the “I/M Program”). The Program requires the inspection of diesel-powered vehicles by means of an emissions opacity test. The opacity of vehicle emissions is measured, using what is known as a snap-idle opacity test, to determine the need for vehicle repair and maintenance. Utah adopted the Program with the goal of reducing particulate emissions from diesel vehicles in the PM102 nonattainment areas along the Wasatch Front—namely, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties.

2 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 10 microns (PM10).

Our disapproval is based on several issues. First, relevant literature and studies indicate that there is not an accepted correlation between opacity and particulate matter mass emissions in diesel vehicles. Given this lack of correlation between opacity and PM mass emissions, it is unlikely that the snap-opacity test is a good predictor of PM emissions, and the State has not provided data to support a different conclusion. Second, the Governor's February 6, 1996 submittal of the Program did not specify a number of critical parameters, such as the relevant opacity limits or specifications for test equipment. While many of the missing parameters were included in revisions to Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties' inspection and maintenance ordinances that the Utah Division of Air Quality forwarded to us on April 12, 2006, the State did not amend Section XXI of the SIP to include the revised ordinances, and the Governor did not submit such an amendment to us to replace the version submitted on February 6, 1996. Therefore, the Program as submitted is not enforceable as a practical matter. Finally, relevant literature and studies suggest that adjusting diesel vehicles to reduce the opacity of emissions may result in an increase in emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX), which are precursors to the formation of PM2.5,3 PM10, and ground level ozone. It is possible, therefore, that repairing vehicles to meet the opacity test could exacerbate PM emissions in Utah, and the State has not provided data to contradict this possibility. We note that on November 13, 2009, Davis, Salt Lake, and Utah Counties were designated nonattainment for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS (74 FR 58688). Also, both Salt Lake and Utah Counties retain their original legal designation of nonattainment for PM10.

3 Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to 2.5 microns (PM2.5).

We are unable to conclude that approval of the I/M Program would strengthen the SIP or would be consistent with the requirements of CAA section 110(l). Section 110(1) states that a SIP revision cannot be federally-approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress towards attainment of a NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. The potential increase in NOX emissions from the I/M Program could interfere with attainment or reasonable further progress towards attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in the relevant counties. We have no conclusive data to show that the potential benefits of the I/M Program outweigh the potential emission increases with respect to pollutants of concern. Furthermore, the State has not provided data that would support the benefits it ascribes to the I/M Program. Instead, it references a 1988 study that attempts to indirectly infer a level of emission reductions resulting from fixing a statistically insignificant number of old-technology diesel vehicles to reduce exhaust opacity, but without conducting the type of before-and-after-repair mass-emission transient testing on the contemporary fleet of diesel vehicles needed to actually quantify any potential impacts on emissions.

For the foregoing reasons, we are disapproving Section XXI of the SIP, “Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program,” as submitted by the State on February 6, 1996.

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law that meets federal requirements and disapproves state law that does not meet federal requirements; this action does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 29, 2014. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

(77) On February 6, 1996, Utah submitted as a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) a “Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program,” Section XXI of the Utah SIP. EPA is disapproving the Utah Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program as submitted on February 6, 1996. On September 20, 1999 the State of Utah submitted revisions to its SIP that revised the numbering and format of the Utah Administrative Code rules within Utah's SIP. From the September 20, 1999 submittal, EPA is approving R307-110-16, “Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride,” and disapproving R307-110-29, “Section XXI, Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program,” which incorporated Utah's Diesel Inspection and Maintenance Program by reference into Utah's rules. EPA has previously acted on other provisions from the September 20, 1999 submittal.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Title R307 of the Utah Administrative Code, Environmental Quality, Air Quality, R307-110, General Requirements: State Implementation Plan, R307-110-16, Section IX, Control Measures for Area and Point Sources, Part G, Fluoride; effective September 15, 1998; as published in the Utah State Bulletin on June 1, 1998 and October 1, 1998.

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts an experiment to test how tailored economic incentives can advance the deployment of next generation networks, both wireline and wireless, in rural, high-cost areas of the country, including Tribal lands. In this experiment, Connect America funding will be available to entities to deploy high-speed, scalable, IP-based networks.

DATES:

Effective March 31, 2014, except for § 54.313(e)(1) through (3) which contain new or modified information collection requirements that will not be effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for those sections.

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in WC Docket No. 10-90; FCC 14-5, adopted on January 30, 2014 and released on January 31, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. Or at the following Internet address: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-5A1.pdf. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (FNPRM's) that were adopted concurrently with the Report and Order are published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

I. Introduction

1. The Commission's Orders, Report and Orders, Further Notices of Proposed Rulemaking, and Proposal for Ongoing Data Initiative (Order) kickstarts the process for a diverse set of experiments and data collection initiatives that will allow the Commission and the public to evaluate how customers are affected by the historic technology transitions that are transforming our nation's voice communications services—from a network based on time-division multiplexed (TDM) circuit-switched voice services running on copper loops to an all-Internet Protocol (IP) network using copper, co-axial cable, wireless, and fiber as physical infrastructure. Americans have come to expect secure, reliable, and innovative communications services. The purpose of these experiments is to speed market-driven technological transitions and innovations by preserving the core statutory values as codified by Congress—public safety, ubiquitous and affordable access, competition, and consumer protection—that exist today. The experiments and initiatives will collect data that will permit service providers and their customers, and independent analysts and commentators—as well as the federal, State, local, and Tribal officials charged with oversight—to make data-driven decisions about these technology transitions. By using an open and deliberative process to identify and address challenges, all stakeholders will benefit as we together learn how we may ensure that our values flourish as providers implement new technologies at scale and, ultimately, seek to discontinue legacy services and facilities.

II. Experiments and Research Targeted to Network Values

2. The Commission adopts a targeted experiment in it which will solicit proposals to bring advanced services to rural Americans, including residents of Tribal lands, with support from the Connect America Fund, which will allow the Commission to examine different approaches to ensuring universal access to these advanced services in an all-IP world.

3. These targeted experiments will be guided by basic principles. They are not intended to resolve legal or policy questions arising from the transition. Rather, they are intended to help the Commission gather a factual record of information to inform such decisions. As the Commission pursues these initiatives, the Commission will work collaboratively with other governmental and non-governmental entities to leverage expertise and experience where appropriate. These processes will be transparent, open, and responsive. They will allow for broad public input from all interested parties and yield data and information that will be publicly available, subject to appropriate privacy protections.

4. These efforts are not exhaustive. The Commission welcomes ideas from other interested parties on ways the Commission can engage in targeted experiments and cooperative research to learn about and anticipate the impacts of transitioning technologies.

A. Next Generation Network Experiments in Rural America (Report and Order in WC Docket No. 10-90)

5. Preserving universal access to communications during these historic technology transitions is one of the Commission's core values. In the last several years, the Commission has undertaken major reforms to each of its universal service programs to modernize those programs in light of marketplace changes and technological advancements.

6. The Commission recognizes that such reforms, along with ongoing efforts of existing providers in rural, high-cost areas, have already resulted in the deployment of new technologies and IP-based networks in some areas, and the Commission expects technology transitions will continue to occur organically. At the same time, consistent with the statutory principles set forth in section 254 of the Act, it is critical that the Commission takes steps to ensure that all Americans benefit from the technology transitions, and that the Commission gain data on the impact of technology transitions in rural areas, including Tribal lands, where residential consumers, small businesses and anchor institutions, including schools, libraries and health care providers, may not have access to advanced broadband services. As networks transition, the Commission needs to make sure that rural Americans are not left behind.

7. The Commission recognizes that rural America poses particular challenges for the deployment of next generation communications services. By definition, rural areas are geographically dispersed, with lower population density. Often they are in areas with geological and topographical challenges; in addition, some rural areas experience particularly extreme seasonal and meteorological conditions. For various reasons, rural areas have lower broadband adoption rates than urban areas. For instance, rural areas have a higher percentage of elderly residents, who tend to have lower broadband adoption. Since the 1960's, when poverty rates were first officially recorded, rural areas have been home to a disproportionate number of low-income Americans. In 2012, 17.7 percent of the population, or about 8.5 million people, living in nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) areas were poor as compared to a poverty rate of 14.5 percent in metro areas. And this gap between nonmetro and metro poverty rates has widened in recent years, from 2.4 percentage points in 2011 to 3.2 percentage points in 2012. All of these factors, taken together, can make the economics of building out broadband-capable infrastructure in rural areas more challenging.

8. In addition, the circumstances described above are frequently exacerbated on Tribal lands. Tribal Nations face unique problems in acquiring communications services, with substantial barriers to deployment prevalent throughout Tribal lands. The resulting digital divide that persists between Tribal Nations and the rest of the country is well-documented.

9. The Commission understands that some providers have proposed wireless products as the only service offering for some rural areas following the retirement of legacy PSTN services and facilities. The Commission notes that there are a range of fixed wireless offerings in the marketplace today, offering differing speeds and usage allowances at price points that are typically higher than what are available from wireline offerings. One of the critical questions the Commission seeks to explore is under what conditions will consumers prefer next generation wireless services over wireline alternatives. In addition, the Commission wants to better understand the viable business models that could support the deployment of fiber or other next generation wired technology in rural areas despite the challenges we have described. The Commission is committed to exploring ways to ensure that, as networks transition, the access of rural American customers, including customers living on Tribal lands, is not just preserved, but enhanced, in all areas of the country.

10. The Commission welcomes ideas about how to structure experiments that will inform its policy decisions regarding the deployment of next generation networks in rural, high-cost areas. To this end, we plan to hold a workshop on rural broadband experiments in March 2014. The Commission welcomes innovative ideas that would coordinate actions across its various support programs, consistent with the statutory framework set forth in section 254. The Commission looks forward to an ongoing dialogue with a diverse group of interested stakeholders.

11. The Commission adopted one possible experiment to test how tailored economic incentives can advance the deployment of next generation networks, both wireline and wireless, in rural, high-cost areas of the country, including Tribal lands. In this experiment, Connect America funding will be available to entities to deploy high-speed, scalable, IP-based networks. The Connect America Fund is a key element of the Commission's universal service reforms to ensure that rural consumers, businesses, and anchor institutions have access to next generation networks. Consistent with the Commission's goals of bringing robust, scalable broadband networks to rural, high-cost communities across America, and gaining experience and data on how to ensure universal access as networks transition, this experiment is designed to help inform our policy decisions in various proceedings pending before the Commission. For example, it is important to understand what providers would be willing to offer what type of service in price cap areas in the event that a current incumbent Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) chooses not to participate in Connect America Phase II.

12. Below, the Commission invites expressions of interest for such experiments in areas served by price cap carriers and areas served by rate-of-return carriers. The Commission's focus is on proposals to build robust last-mile broadband to offer service to a wide range of end users in rural communities, rather than proposals for middle mile projects. The Commission also is focused on conducting these experiments in rural areas lacking Internet access service that delivers 3 Mbps downstream/768 kbps upstream. For both types of territories, funding could be made available in 2014 for discrete technology transition experiments within the existing Connect America budget. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that accompanies this R&O, the Commission seeks comment on making available unallocated Connect America funding to support these structured technology transition experiments across a diverse cross section of rural America. The Commission could make a limited amount of funding available for such experiments without increasing the overall size of the Connect America Fund, and without increasing the contribution burden on consumers.

13. Useful information that could be developed through such experiments will help address four sets of interrelated questions. First, from these experiments, the Commission seeks to test the assumption among certain providers that the geographic and demographic characteristics of certain rural areas, including Tribal lands, economically preclude the deployment of high-capacity fiber-based services that deliver higher speeds to those communities, absent some level of governmental support. The Commission seeks to address the extent of interest among non-incumbent service providers to deploy high-speed, scalable, IP-based networks to serve consumers, businesses, and community-based institutions such as schools, libraries and healthcare providers in rural areas where broadband is lacking, potentially with assistance from the Connect America Fund, and to learn what specific measures to streamline the ETC designation process will encourage such entry by non-incumbent providers. Likewise, the Commission seeks to learn whether providers are willing and able to deliver services with performance characteristics well in excess of the minimum standards that price cap carriers accepting model-based support are required to offer to all locations in funded areas, for the same amount or less support than that calculated by the forward-looking cost model. The Commission hopes these experiments will generate “best practices” that will allow others to replicate experimental successes in other rural areas. The Commission will explore how they can maximize the deployment of robust, future-proof networks most efficiently within our finite $4.5 billion Connect America budget.

14. Second, based on the proposals submitted, the Commission seeks to develop a greater understanding of the geographic and demographic characteristics of areas where service providers (both incumbents and non-incumbents) would choose to offer wireless services at pricing reasonably comparable to urban wireline offerings. The Commission seeks to identify the likely features of such wireless services and the characteristics of wireless services that residential consumers would find to be an acceptable substitute for fiber-based broadband service.

15. Third, the Commission seeks to develop a greater understanding through these targeted experiments of how these transitions will impact anchor institutions and the people they serve. The Commission is interested in learning more about the types of services that will be offered to schools, libraries, health care providers, and other anchor institutions that are served by next generation networks financed in part with Connect America support, and at what price. The Commission seeks to explore how the transitions will best ensure the provision of high quality broadband connectivity appropriate to the needs of rural health care providers and enable remote health monitoring at home, which is critical to consumers in rural areas who otherwise would have to travel great distances to have access to health care. The Commission seeks to examine whether and how the business case for deployment in rural areas, including Tribal lands, can be improved by securing the participation of anchor institutions to serve as key customers of the next generation networks. Through these experiments, the Commission hopes to identify strategies to ensure that community-based institutions in rural areas, such as schools, libraries and health care providers, have access to next generation services.

16. Finally, the Commission seeks to work cooperatively with other governmental agencies to advance our shared objectives of ensuring that consumers, businesses and anchor institutions have access to next generation services. Under section 254, universal service is a joint federal and State responsibility. The Commission is particularly interested in how States, localities, Tribal governments, and other non-federal governmental bodies can provide assistance, through matching funding, in-kind contributions or other regulatory approvals and permits, to improve the business case for deployment of next generation networks.

17. The Commission's intention here is not to delay any decisions regarding implementation of any universal service reforms, but rather to leverage whatever knowledge can be developed quickly through such experiments to inform our judgment on an ongoing basis as the Commission addresses critically important policy issues in several of our pending universal service rulemaking dockets. Implementation of Phase II of the Connect America Fund will not be delayed by these experiments. Work on the forward-looking cost model that will be used to determine Phase II support amounts to be offered to price cap carriers is nearing completion, and the Commission expects the Wireline Competition Bureau will be in a position to implement the Phase II challenge process and finalize the list of eligible census blocks in the months ahead. The Commission expects to implement the offer of model-based support to price cap carriers before the end of 2014. The Commission also is committed to resolving by the end of 2014 how the Connect America Fund will address the challenges of providing service to the most remote, difficult to serve areas of the country.

1. Connect America Phase II Experiments

18. One critical step to advancing technology transitions in rural America, including on Tribal lands, is to implement Phase II of the Connect America Fund. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011, the Commission concluded it would use a competitive bidding mechanism for Phase II of the Connect America Fund to award support in price cap territories in those areas where price cap carriers decline to make a state-level commitment in exchange for model-based support, and it sought comment on how to design this mechanism. At various points in the Connect America proceeding, a number of parties have suggested that we implement a market-based mechanism in the form of a competitive application process as opposed to a reverse auction. Others have focused on the mechanics and design of a reverse auction. To date, the Commission has implemented one reverse auction and shortly will conduct another.

19. The Commission reaffirms its commitment to using competitive bidding to award support to the extent the price cap carriers decline to accept the offer of model-based support. That bi-partisan decision was the culmination of efforts over a decade to reform universal service, and the Commission remains firmly committed to completing implementation of the universal service reform framework previously adopted by the Commission.

20. One of the key questions remaining in the Connect America proceeding, however, is the specific form of the competitive bidding mechanism that will occur to the extent price cap carriers decline to elect model-based support: A reverse auction or some other form of competitive bidding. The Commission does not resolve that question in the R&O.

21. The Commission concluded that it would be desirable to test, on a limited scale, the use of an application-based competitive bidding process with objective selection criteria on a limited scale before finalizing decisions regarding the competitive bidding mechanism for full-scale implementation in WC Docket No. 10-90 to award support in price cap territories where the incumbent declines the offer of model-based support. The Commission fully recognizes that conducting nationwide competitive bidding—whatever form it ultimately takes—to award recurring support to preserve voice service and expand broadband service is a significant undertaking that has never been implemented in this country. The Commission takes seriously its fundamental obligation to preserve and advance universal service. Even though the Commission has solicited multiple rounds of comment on issues relating to competitive bidding mechanisms, there is no substitute for real world experience to inform our policy decisions. Service to potentially millions of consumers, businesses and anchor institutions may be impacted by the particular design of the competitive bidding process. For that reason, the Commission wishes to gain experience and data by experimenting with an application-based competitive bidding process with defined selection criteria that could inform our judgment regarding how to structure the Phase II competitive bidding mechanism. The Commission therefore adopted a Phase II experiment and describes below the application process for this experiment.

22. The Commission concluded that soliciting and reviewing applications in the near term as a part of this Phase II experiment will assist it in making critical decisions in a future order regarding the objective evaluative criteria that should be applied more broadly in the competitive bidding process for Connect America Phase II, such as whether funding should be awarded solely based on cost per location, or whether the Commission should give additional weight or bidding credits in defined circumstances. The Commission agreed with commenters that a competitive bidding process will be most successful if it is focused on clear goals, is transparent, and is based on objective, relatively straightforward, well-defined, and measurable criteria. In short, the Commission expects this experiment will help it design a more effective nationwide competitive bidding mechanism, whether that ultimately takes the form of a reverse auction or some other form of competitive bidding with a limited number of objective, defined selection criteria. This experiment also will provide an opportunity to consider how better to ensure that all of universal service programs are working together effectively to ensure that residential consumers, small businesses, and anchor institutions have access to evolving services delivered over scalable networks.

a. Application Process

23. To assist entities willing to conduct experiments to deploy high-speed, scalable, IP-based networks, using either wireline or wireless technologies, or a combination of technologies, in rural, high-cost areas (including on Tribal lands) with Connect America funding, the Commission describes in further detail elements of proposals that would assist the Commission in learning from these experiments. The technology transitions proposals that invited in the R&O are not limited to proposals from incumbent providers. The Commission encourages proposals from a wide range of entities and consortia of entities, including State and regional authorities, research and education networks, municipalities, Tribal governments, cable operators, competitive local exchange carriers, incumbent local exchange carriers, fixed and mobile wireless providers, wireless Internet service providers, utilities, and others.

24. The Commission's invitation for Phase II experiment proposals will be conducted in two stages: A non-binding expression of interest stage and a formal proposal stage. The Commission requests expressions of interest to be filed by letter in WC Docket No. 10-90 by March 7, 2014, although the Commission also will consider additional expressions of interest on a rolling basis after that date. All expressions of interest must be filed electronically. Information to be included in an expression of interest might include, but not be limited to:

• Identification of the proposed service area for the experiment, including census block number, with any relevant information regarding the number of locations that could be served, including schools, libraries, and other anchor institutions

• The broadband technology or technologies to be deployed

• Contemplated service offerings (e.g., description of voice service, broadband speed tiers, nature of video service, if any) and pricing of such offerings

• If known, expected State and/or local or Tribal governmental participation in and/or support for the project (e.g., expedited permitting, access to rights of way, matching funds, etc.)

• Whether the proposal is expected to require one-time or continuing funding and a high-level estimate of the amount of funding requested

25. The formal proposal stage will follow the expression of interest stage. Submitting an expression of interest is not a precondition for submitting a formal proposal in the second stage.

26. The USF/ICC Transformation Order adopted a goal of “ensur[ing] universal availability of modern networks capable of providing voice and broadband service to homes, businesses, and community anchor institutions” and adopted a framework for the Connect America Fund to achieve these goals by extending broadband to millions of unserved locations over a five-year period, including connecting community anchor institutions. The Commission directed the Wireline Competition Bureau to invite input on the unique needs of community anchor institutions as it developed the forward-looking model, and it included reporting obligations on incumbent LECs to track the number of community anchor institutions that were connected. In seeking comment in the FNPRM on the competitive bidding process to be implemented, to the extent price cap carriers declined to make a state-level commitment for model-based support, the Commission sought comment on how to leverage the budget to achieve these goals and “extend[] services to as many consumers, businesses, and community anchor institutions as possible.”

27. The Commission is particularly interested in projects that achieve the goals of the USF/ICC Transformation Order and demonstrate whether, and how, the competitive bidding process under Phase II of the Connect America Fund might be structured. The Commission also is interested in learning how to best leverage the support available from all of the Commission's universal service programs to comprehensively serve the needs of rural communities, including their educational and health care needs. Experiments to fund modern networks in rural, high-cost areas from the Connect America Fund may serve to provide important information on the potential benefits and burdens of the technology transitions on health care providers and their patients, and on educational institutions and their patrons, in rural areas, while informing the Commission's policy decisions in implementing the Phase II competitive bidding process and more broadly, as well.

28. The Commission plans to adopt a budget for these rural broadband experiments and will announce the selection criteria prior to the solicitation of formal proposals. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on what amount of Connect America funding should be made available for this experiment and the objective selection criteria for the experiments. The Commission anticipates that once the Commission takes action in response to the FNPRM, applications will be due within a relatively short time frame, such as 60 days. The Commission therefore encourages potential applicants to consider how they might begin to structure their proposals early in the process. The Commission expects a relatively small number of projects, reflecting a diversity of technologies (both wireline and wireless) in different geographic areas, will be selected for funding.

b. Geographic Areas Eligible for Support

29. In the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, 76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, the Commission proposed to use the same areas that are identified by the Connect America cost model as eligible for support in the competitive bidding process. It proposed to use census blocks as the minimum size geographic unit as eligible for competitive bidding and sought comment on whether to adopt a rule that would aggregate eligible census blocks into census tracts for bidding, or to allow bidder-defined aggregation of census blocks.

30. The Commission concluded that proposals in this rural broadband experiment in price cap territories will be entertained at the census tract level. Making a county the minimum geographic area for an experimental proposal potentially could deter participation in this experiment from smaller providers. The Commission therefore concludes that the minimum geographic area to be made available in the Phase II experiment is the census tract, with funding provided only for locations in eligible census blocks within that census tract. The Commission concludes any census blocks lacking broadband where the average cost per location is equal to or exceeds the likely funding threshold in the forward-looking cost model should be eligible for the rural broadband experiment. The Commission thus does not exclude from eligibility those census blocks where the average cost, as calculated by the model, exceeds the likely extremely high cost threshold. In other words, potential applicants should be free to seek funding to serve census tracts that contain census blocks where the average cost per location, as determined by the forward-looking cost model, exceeds the extremely high-cost threshold. The Commission makes this decision recognizing that the actual cost for a particular provider to serve the area may vary from the cost estimated by the cost model. To the extent parties can economically serve areas that fall above the extremely high-cost threshold with terrestrial voice and broadband with the assistance of support, the Commission does not want to preclude those areas from being eligible in the Phase II experiment. The Commission hopes that this experiment will provide the Commission with useful data that could inform future decisions regarding the treatment of hard-to-serve remote areas of the country.

31. As noted above, one of the Commission's objectives in conducting this experiment is to determine how the Commission can use targeted funding most efficiently to expand the availability of voice and broadband-capable infrastructure within the defined $4.5 billion budget for the Connect America Fund. For purposes of the experiment, the Commission expects that the amount of funding to be made available for any applicant will not exceed the amount of model-calculated support associated with the relevant geographic area, either a census tract or aggregation of census tracts. This will enable us to test in the experiment the use of the cost model for purposes of setting reserve prices for future implementation of the Phase II competitive bidding process.

32. The Commission is focused on using this experiment to deploy robust, scalable networks in rural areas lacking Internet access that delivers 3 Mbps downstream/768 kbps upstream. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission adopted a policy that support not be provided to areas served by an unsubsidized competitor. The Commission remains committed to ensuring that Connect America funding is not used in areas where other providers are offering voice and broadband meeting the Commission's requirements. The Commission does not think it would be efficient to conduct a challenge process to the eligibility of census blocks within a census tract when formal proposals are initially submitted; depending on the volume of proposals received, that could place a burden both on outside parties and Commission staff. Rather, the Commission concludes that challenges to the eligibility of areas proposed for experiments are more appropriately entertained after the project has otherwise been tentatively selected for funding. To the extent a challenge is granted in whole or in part, funding for those locations would be adjusted appropriately. The Commission expects that the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to conduct the challenge process in a fashion similar to the process that the Wireline Competition Bureau has adopted, but not yet implemented, for determining eligible areas for model-based support.

33. The Commission recognizes that there may be situations where the extent of competitive overlap for broadband services in a proposed project is de minimis. If a particular applicant proposes to serve an area where a current recipient of high cost support already provides broadband, the Commission would need to understand specifically why a deviation from its general policy of not supporting two or more providers in an area is justified and in the public interest. Likewise, to the extent an applicant proposes to include in its project locations that are served by an unsubsidized competitor, the Commission would be interested in why deviation from its policy is justified and in the public interest. The Commission seeks comment in the FNPRM on how to define a de minimis overlap and what measures the Commission should implement in the experiment to ensure that funds in the experiment are focused on unserved areas.

c. Provider Eligibility Requirements

34. In the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, the Commission proposed to require applicants for support to be designated an ETC at the time they applied to participate in the competitive bidding process, with a limited exception for Tribally-owned or controlled entities. The Commission proposed that all applicants be required to certify that they are financially and technically capable of providing the required service within the relevant geographic area. The Commission indicated that it anticipated that price cap ETCs that decline model-determined support would be eligible to participate in the competitive bidding process, and it sought comment on the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach.

35. The Commission seeks to encourage the participation in this experiment from as many different entities as possible. The Commission emphasizes that they welcome applications from a wide range of entities, including cable operators, incumbent price cap carriers, competitive local exchange carriers, affiliates of neighboring incumbent providers, utilities, fixed and mobile wireless providers, wireless Internet service providers, State and regional authorities, research and education networks, municipalities, Tribal governments, and others.

36. Timing of ETC Designation. The Commission concludes that entities selected to receive funding in an experiment must obtain ETC designation from either a State commission pursuant to section 214(e)(2) or the Commission pursuant to section 214(e)(6) of the Act. Therefore, entities must offer voice telephony service at reasonably comparable rates as part of the experiment. The Commission declines at this time to adopt the suggestion of certain parties that it either forbears from ETC designation requirements, or that it preempts States from issuing ETC designations. Rather, the Commission adopts a more liberal process for the timing of ETC designation. The Commission's experience in implementing this rule in the Phase II experiment will help it determine whether other measures are necessary regarding the ETC designation process when implementing the Connect America Phase II competitive bidding process more broadly.

37. The Commission concludes that potential applicants in this rural broadband experiment need not be ETCs at the time they initially apply for funding at the Commission. Rather, the Commission is persuaded that they should permit entities to obtain ETC designation after being selected for the award of Connect America funding, which the Commission believes will encourage greater participation in the experiment by a wider range of entities. ETC status must be confirmed before funding awarded through the experiment is disbursed. The Commission expects this confirmation would occur within 90 days of funding award.

38. The Commission recognizes that the Commission declined to take that approach for the Mobility Fund Phase I and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I, instead requiring entities to have obtained an ETC designation prior to filing the short form application, with an exception for Tribally-owned or controlled entities if they had an ETC application pending. Those requirements were adopted in part to ensure that applicants filing to participate in the auction were serious bidders. Based on our experience with the Mobility Fund Phase I and our review of the record, the Commission now concludes that it would be appropriate to allow Connect America Phase II experiment applicants to obtain ETC designation after a preliminary determination has been made to award funding, rather than before filing an application with the Commission. The Commission assumes that applicants that submit formal proposals would seek to demonstrate their financial and technical capabilities throughout their application and will submit well-developed proposals that could be implemented quickly if selected. Based on the Commission's experience with the experiment, it can revisit this decision if necessary before implementing a competitive bidding process for Connect America Phase II more generally.

39. In the Mobility Fund Phase I, the Commission expressly permitted potential bidders to obtain conditional ETC designation prior to filing the short-form application. Given the Commission's decision to permit entities to seek ETC designation after notification of tentative selection for funding award, the Commission does not anticipate many parties would seek conditional ETC designation prior to applying for funding through this experiment. To the extent a party chooses to do so, however, and a State or this Commission issues a conditional ETC designation prior to selection for funding, the Commission expects that the ETC designation in such situations will be finalized quickly as a pro forma matter after notification of selection for funding. The Commission's experience with the experiments will inform its ultimate decisions of whether additional federal rules are necessary to ensure that the ETC designation process does not erect unnecessary barriers to competitive entry.

40. The Commission also addresses the role of ETC designation in situations where there is a multi-stakeholder group working together to bring broadband-capable infrastructure to unserved communities. The Commission welcomes participation in the Connect America Phase II experiment from a wide variety of entities, including partnerships or consortia of entities that may include service providers, vendors, governmental agencies, and others. Indeed, in other contexts, the Commission has recognized the value of consortia bulk purchasing in driving down service rates, increasing bandwidth, and reducing administrative overhead.

41. For the Connect America Phase II experiment, the Commission concludes that the requirement to be an ETC is met if one entity that is part of the group, partnership or consortia obtains ETC designation from the relevant State or this Commission. Thus, for instance, the entity that is designated as the ETC could be a competitive local exchange carrier that offers the telecommunications services eligible for support pursuant to section 254(c)(1) of the Act in partnership with another entity that constructs and operates the broadband-capable network. Comparable to the requirements adopted by the Commission for consortia leaders in the Healthcare Connect Fund, the Commission requires that the ETC be legally and financially responsible for providing the section 254(c)(1) supported telecommunications service; serve as the point of contact for the Commission, USAC, the relevant State, and Tribal governments, as appropriate; be responsible for submitting required forms and certifications to the Commission, USAC, the relevant State, and Tribal governments, as appropriate; receive funding disbursements; and be responsible for recordkeeping and coordinating any audits for members of the group.

d. Term of Support

42. In the USF/ICC Transformation FNPRM, the Commission proposed that the term of support for the Phase II competitive bidding process would be the same as that adopted for providers that accept the state-level model-determined support, but it also sought comment on whether a longer time period, such as ten years, would be appropriate for recipients of support awarded through a competitive bidding process.

43. The Commission solicits proposals in this Phase II experiment from entities seeking either one-time support or recurring support. The Commission previously offered two rounds of Phase I incremental support to price cap carriers to extend broadband-capable infrastructure in unserved areas. The Commission now wishes to explore the possibility of providing one-time support on a competitive basis to extend broadband-capable networks in areas where providers expect to cover their ongoing operating costs with end user and other sources of revenue. The experiment will help the Commission determine the extent to which parties may be willing to build out broadband in certain areas with one-time rather than recurring support.

44. The Commission concludes that support provided through the Phase II experiment may be provided for up to ten years, subject to existing requirements and the availability of funds. The Commission is persuaded that it is appropriate to provide support for up to ten years to those providers that commit to deploy high-speed, scalable, IP-based networks that will provide residential consumers, small businesses and anchor institutions with an evolving level of service. The Commission acknowledges the possibility that over time marketplaces may change, and it is possible that some funded areas may see new competitors at some point in the future. At the same time, the Commission also recognizes that some entities may be unwilling to make the necessary long-term investments to build robust future-proof networks in areas that are uneconomic to serve absent continued support beyond a five-year term.

45. The Commission is not persuaded by those who argue that the term of support should be the same for all recipients of Connect America support, regardless of whether they receive support based on the forward-looking cost model or through competitive bidding. There is no inherent reason that the terms of the competitive offer need to be identical to the offer of model-based support. Indeed, having different terms of support in different areas may provide us with valuable information regarding the impact of different rules that will help inform future policy decisions regarding universal service reforms. In particular, in those areas where price cap carriers elect model-based support for a term of five years, the Commission will need to decide whether and if so how recurring support should be provided after the end of the five-year period. By allowing parties submitting proposals for the rural broadband experiment to indicate the length of time (up to ten years) for which they seek, the Commission hopes to gain real world experience that will enable the Commission to evaluate whether providers are more willing to deploy future-proof infrastructure when assured of a funding stream over a ten-year period as opposed to a five-year period. As is true for all high-cost recipients, ETCs that receive Phase II support for ten years will be subject to annual reporting, including updates on their progress towards meeting their planned targets, as well as audits, allowing the Commission to monitor the projects during the term. Balancing these considerations, the Commission concludes that providing a longer term of support in the experiment could provide the Commission with valuable information regarding how to elicit greater participation in the Connect America Phase II competitive bidding process in price cap territories, which will help ensure that funding is targeted efficiently to expand broadband-capable infrastructure throughout the country.

e. Other Considerations

46. The Commission remains committed to the principle of not providing duplicative funding in a given geographic area. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on how the selection of projects through the competitive bidding experiment should affect the inclusion of those areas in the offer of model-based support to price cap carriers or in the Connect America Phase II competitive bidding process and can ensure that public funds do not substitute for private capital.

47. The availability of Connect America funding for technology transition experiments is subject to the applicable requirements of sections 214 and 254 of the Act and will be conditioned on complying with all relevant universal service rules that the Commission has adopted or may adopt in the future in the relevant rulemaking proceedings, including but not limited to ETC requirements to the extent that they apply to recipients of high-cost and Lifeline support, reporting requirements, audits, and enforcement mechanisms for non-compliance with rules. In the FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on any additional rules or requirements the Commission should adopt in the context of such experiments.

48. To the extent applicants believe compliance with a specific requirement is not necessary in the context of an experiment, they should identify with specificity those rules that should be waived or modified. Funding also may be conditioned on compliance with any additional commitments made by the applicant in conjunction with its application to participate in the Phase II experiment.

2. Next Generation Rural Broadband Experiments in Areas Where the Incumbent Is a Rate-of-Return Carrier

49. The Commission welcomes experiments regarding technology transitions in areas served by incumbent rate-of-return carriers as well as price cap carriers, as such experiments would provide us with valuable information from a variety of geographic areas. As a complement to experiments in price cap territories, the Commission therefore invites proposals on a competitive basis in geographic areas where the incumbent provider is a rate-of-return carrier. The Commission intends to implement rural broadband experiments in areas served by rate-of-return carriers before the end of 2014, which will provide a potential pathway to longer term reforms regarding support for broadband-capable infrastructure in such areas.

50. The Commission recognizes that historically the Commission has implemented different universal service mechanisms for the larger price cap carriers than for the smaller companies, which are typically rate-of-return regulated carriers. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission recognized that smaller rate-of-return carriers “operate in many of the country's most difficult and expensive areas.” The Commission largely preserved the existing support mechanisms, with some modifications, rather than implementing the same reforms for both price cap carriers and rate-of-return carriers. Instead of the approach adopted for price cap carriers—which are required to serve 100 percent of locations in specific census blocks deemed eligible for support—it implemented a more flexible approach under which rate-of-return carriers are required to offer broadband service meeting the initial requirement of at least 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream upon reasonable request, in recognition of “the economic challenges of extending service in the high-cost areas of the country served by rate-of-return carriers.”

51. At the same time, the Commission also concluded that “all universal service high-cost support should ultimately be distributed through [Connect America Fund] for all recipients.” A number of parties have specifically urged the Commission to adopt a Connect America Fund to support the expansion of broadband in areas served by rate-of-return carriers. The Commission wishes to explore the possibility of making funding available in such areas in a way that would assist the Commission in deciding how to provide targeted and efficient support over the longer term. Such a mechanism could functionally replace a high-cost mechanism that the Commission decided to eliminate and phase out in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, safety net additive, which was originally adopted to encourage new investment in modern networks. These experiments would not prejudge any future actions regarding modifications to the current universal service mechanisms available to incumbent rate-of-return carriers.

52. In implementing any experiments in areas served by rate-of-return carriers, the Commission recognizes the statute expressly contemplates a different process for ETC designation in areas served by rate-of-return carriers than it does in areas served by incumbent price cap carriers. Section 214(e)(2) specifies that before designating an additional eligible telecommunications carrier for an area served by a rural telephone company, the State commission shall find that the designation is in the public interest. The relevant State and the Commission must agree on any service area redefinition that would create a service territory for a new ETC that is different than the incumbent's service area. In implementing Phase I of the Mobility Fund, the Commission adopted a limited forbearance from requiring that the service area of an ETC conform to the service area of any rural telephone company serving the same area, but only with respect to conditional ETC designations for participating in the Mobility Fund Phase I auction. The Commission concluded that forbearance in that situation advanced “the Act's and the Commission's goals of promoting access to mobile service over current and next generation wireless networks in areas currently without such service by reducing barriers to participation in Phase I of the Mobility Fund.”

53. The Commission is interested in assessing the level of interest among rate-of-return carriers in participating in a rural broadband experiment, but also are interested in expressions of interest from others as well. As with the Phase II experiment, interested parties may file a letter in WC Docket No. 10-90 no later than March 7, 2014, expressing their interest in conducting a rural broadband experiment in rate-of-return territories with Connect America funding. The Commission also will consider additional expressions of interest on a rolling basis after that date. All expressions of interest must be filed electronically. Consistent with the approach adopted for experiments in price cap territories, experimental funding would only be provided to entities in rate-of-return areas that are ETCs, and therefore to the extent a non-ETC is tentatively selected for the award of funding, it would then need to obtain ETC designation. As an ETC, it would be required to provide the supported service—voice telephony—at rates reasonably comparable to rates for similar services in urban areas.

54. The Commission emphasizes that participation in this experiment will not alter existing universal service obligations and receipt of support by current rate-of-return ETCs, regardless of whether a competitive ETC receives experimental support in the same service area. Any Connect America funding awarded in such a rural broadband experiment would be additive to current support for ETCs.

55. The Commission seeks comment in the FNPRM on a number of issues, including whether to implement a staggered implementation schedule for formal proposals in rate-of-return areas and whether to modify the process for experiments in rate-of-return study areas compared with how the Commission implements experiments in price cap territories.

3. Non-Substantive Rule Amendments

56. The Commission now amends the Code of Federal Regulations to eliminate current section 54.309 (which described the non-rural support mechanism that the Commission eliminated in the USF/ICC Transformation Order) and replace that section with a new section 54.309 and 54.310 to address Phase II. The new rule sections codify decisions previously made by the Commission in the USF/ICC Transformation Order regarding the offer of model-based support to price cap carriers, the deployment schedule for Phase II, and the Phase II service obligations.

III. Procedural Matters1. Paperwork Reduction Analysis

57. The Report and Order contains modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

58. In this present document, the Commission has assessed the effects of modifying reporting rules, and find that doing so does not change the burden on small businesses with fewer than 25 employees.

2. Congressional Review Act

59. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.

3. Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification

60. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

61. This Report and Order codifies rules adopted by the Commission in USF/ICC Transformation Order. This action does not create any burdens, benefits, or requirements that were not addressed by the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis attached to USF/ICC Transformation Order. Therefore, we certify that the action taken in this Report and Order will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including a copy of this final certification, in a report to Congress pursuant to SBREFA. In addition, the Report and Order and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA, and will be published in the Federal Register.

IV. Ordering Clauses

62. Accordingly, it is ordered, that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 201-206, 214, 218-220, 251, 252, 254, 256, 303(r), 332, 403, and 1302, and sections 1.1 and 1.421 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, 1.421, this Report and Order in WC Docket No. 10-90 is adopted, effective thirty (30) days after publication of the text or summary thereof in the Federal Register, except for those rules and requirements involving Paperwork Reduction Act burdens, which shall become effective immediately upon announcement in the Federal Register of OMB approval, and except for the solicitation of non-binding expressions of interest in rural broadband experiments specified in paras. 24 and 53, which are effective upon release. It is our intention in adopting these rules that, if any of the rules that we retain, modify or adopt today, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, are held to be unlawful, the remaining portions of the rules not deemed unlawful, and the application of such rules to other persons or circumstances, shall remain in effect to the fullest extent permitted by law.

63. It is further ordered, that part 54 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR part 54, is amended as set forth in Appendix A of the order, and such rule amendments shall be effective March 31, 2014, except § 54.313(e)(1) through (3) which contain new or modified information collection requirements that will not be effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing the effective date for those sections.

64. It is further ordered, that the Commission shall send a copy of this Report and Order in WC Docket No. 10-90 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

65. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Report and Order in WC Docket No. 10-90, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

(a) A price cap carrier electing Phase II model-based support is required to provide broadband service at actual speeds of at least 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream, with latency suitable for real-time applications, including Voice over Internet Protocol, and usage capacity that is reasonably comparable to comparable offerings in urban areas, at rates that are reasonable comparable to rates for comparable offerings in urban areas.

(b) In addition, a price cap carrier electing Phase II model-based support is required to provide broadband service with actual speeds of at least 6 Mbps downstream to a specified number of locations, and upstream speeds of at least 1.5 Mbps to a specified number of locations, as determined by the Wireline Competition Bureau.

(a) Geographic areas eligible for support. Connect America Phase II support may be made available for census blocks or other areas identified as eligible by public notice. The number of supported locations will be identified for each area eligible for support will be identified by public notice.

(b) Term of support. Connect America Phase II model-based support shall be provided to price cap carriers that elect to make a state-level commitment for five years.

(c) Deployment schedule. Recipients of Phase II funding must complete deployment to 85% of supported locations within three years of notification of Phase II support authorization and to 100% of supported locations within five years of notification of Phase II support authorization. For purposes of meeting the obligation to deploy to the requisite number of supported locations, incumbent price cap carriers accepting a state-level commitment may serve locations in census blocks with costs above the extremely high-cost threshold instead of locations in eligible census blocks, provided that they meet the public interest obligations set forth in § 54.309 for those locations, and provided that the total number of locations covered is greater than or equal to the number of locations in the eligible census blocks for which the state-level commitment is made.

(d) Disbursement of Phase II funding. An eligible telecommunications carrier will be advised by public notice when it is authorized to receive support. The public notice will detail how disbursements will be made.

(1) In the calendar year no later than three years after notification of authorization of CAF Phase II funding, a certification that the recipient is providing broadband meeting the requisite public interest obligations specified in § 54.309 to 85% of its supported locations.

(2) In the calendar year no later than five years after notification of authorization of CAF Phase II funding, a certification that the recipient is providing broadband meeting the requisite public interest obligations specified in § 54.309 to 100% of its supported locations.

(3) In the calendar year after the filing of its initial five-year service quality improvement plan, and every year thereafter, a progress report on the company's five-year service quality improvement plan, including the following information:

Section 827 of the NDAA for FY 2013 created a standalone statute for DoD that is independent of the FAR coverage.

DoD published an interim rule in the Federal Register at 78 FR 59851 on September 30, 2013, to implement statutory amendments to the whistleblower protections for contractor and subcontractor employees. One respondent submitted a public comment in response to the interim rule.

II. Discussion and AnalysisA. Public Comments

DoD reviewed the public comment in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comment is provided below.

Comment: The respondent recommended reinstating the clarifying statements at DFARS 203.903 and 203.905 that “The following policy applies to DoD instead of the policy at FAR 3.903/3.905.”

Response: In the final rule, DoD has inserted a statement in section 203.900, Scope, to indicate that DFARS subpart 203.9 is to be used in lieu of FAR subpart 3.9. DFARS contractor whistleblower policies are based on 10 U.S.C. 2409, which is no longer implemented in the FAR (see FAR 3.900).

B. Other Changes

DoD has incorporated other non-substantive editorial changes in the final rule. In addition to redesignation of some paragraphs to conform to DFARS numbering conventions and minor wording changes for clarity, DoD has relocated DFARS 203.907, Classified information, to DFARS 203.903(2), because section 3.907 in the FAR is titled “Whistleblower Protections Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act).” DoD cannot assign a new title to the corresponding section in the DFARS.

II. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., and is summarized as follows:

The Department of Defense (DoD) is amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations Supplement (DFARS) to implement changes to existing protections for contractor whistleblower employees in accordance with section 827 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. Section 827 amends 10 U.S.C. 2409 and 10 U.S.C. 2324(k), making the changes applicable to DoD and NASA. Each agency is amending its FAR supplement. This analysis pertains only to the DFARS final rule. DFARS is revising subpart 203.9, “Whistleblower Protections for Contractor Employees.” The subpart covers the policy, procedures for filing and investigating complaints, remedies, and the prescription for the clause at DFARS 252.203-7002, entitled “Requirement to Inform Employees of Whistleblower Rights.”

The rule applies to all entities, small as well as large, at the prime contract and subcontract level. However, not all entities will have a situation that requires an employee to use the whistleblower provisions, and there is no way to predict the potential number of whistleblowers in advance. However, a small entity could be impacted by a whistleblower employee either as a Government prime contractor or subcontractor. In addition, the impact on an entity is directly related to the seriousness of the alleged wrongdoing.

No comments were received from the public on the Regulatory Flexibility analysis. No comments were received from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

There are no reporting requirements associated with this rule. However, a firm accused of retaliating against an employee whistleblower is likely to be required to furnish human resources documentation to disprove the accusation. This documentation, however, would only be required in the course of an investigation of the accusation, not as a result of a contract clause.

There are no alternatives to this rule. Because of the terms used in the statute, DoD is unable to exempt small entities or establish a dollar threshold for coverage. Regardless of the size of the business, a whistleblower employee must be protected from retaliation by his/her employer.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 203 and 252

Government procurement.

Manuel Quinones,Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

Accordingly, the interim rule amending 48 CFR parts 203 and 252, which was published in the Federal Register at 78 FR 59851 on September 30, 2013, is adopted as a final rule with the following changes:

PART 203—IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST1. The authority citation for 48 CFR part 203 continues to read as follows:Authority:

(1) Prohibition. 10 U.S.C. 2409 prohibits contractors and subcontractors from discharging, demoting, or otherwise discriminating against an employee as a reprisal for disclosing, to any of the entities listed at paragraph (2) of this section, information that the employee reasonably believes is evidence of gross mismanagement of a DoD contract, a gross waste of DoD funds, an abuse of authority relating to a DoD contract, a violation of law, rule, or regulation related to a DoD contract (including the competition for or negotiation of a contract), or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. Such reprisal is prohibited even if it is undertaken at the request of an executive branch official, unless the request takes the form of a non-discretionary directive and is within the authority of the executive branch official making the request.

(2) Classified information. As provided in section 827(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, nothing in this subpart provides any rights to disclose classified information not otherwise provided by law.

DoD is amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement authority for DoD to allow its litigation support contractors to have access to “sensitive information,” provided that the litigation support contractor is subject to certain restrictions on using and disclosing such information.

DATES:

Effective February 28, 2014. Comment Date: Comments on the interim rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before April 29, 2014, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by DFARS Case 2012-D029, using any of the following methods:

Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov.

Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by inserting “DFARS Case 2012-D029” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2012-D029.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2012-D029” on your attached document. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

Email: dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2012-D029 in the subject line of the message.

Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Mark Gomersall, 703-602-0302.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Background

Section 802 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 is a successor to section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (Pub. L. 111-383), which amended 10 U.S.C. section 2320 to authorize DoD “covered litigation support contractors” to have access to and use of any technical, proprietary, or confidential data delivered under a contract for the sole purpose of providing litigation support. Section 802 amended 10 U.S.C. to add section 129d, repealed section 801 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, and expanded the basic coverage first established in section 801 to cover a significantly broader class of “sensitive information,” which is defined as “confidential commercial, financial, or proprietary information, technical data, or other privileged information.”

II. Discussion and Analysis

The basic objective of the rule is to expressly authorize DoD to provide its litigation support contractors with access to certain types of non-public information, provided that the litigation support contractors are required to protect that information from any unauthorized disclosure, and are prohibited from using that information for any purpose other than providing litigation support services to DoD.

New DFARS subpart 204.74, Disclosure of Information to Litigation Support Contractors, along with its associated new clauses, provides the policy governing the new subpart in a two pronged implementation approach:

• DoD is authorized to release litigation information, including sensitive information, to its litigation support contractors provided that the litigation support contractors are subject to appropriate requirements and restrictions that comply with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. section 129d.

• Although not required by the statute, DoD will, to the maximum extent practicable, ensure that offerors and contractors submitting information to DoD under solicitations and contracts will be notified that the submitted information may be disclosed to DoD's litigation support contractors under the aforementioned conditions.

The new clause at 252.204-7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors, is the mechanism through which the requirements and restrictions of 10 U.S.C. section 129d are applied to litigation support contractors. Furthermore, new DFARS clause 252.204-7015, Disclosure of Information to Litigation support Contractors, requires litigation support contractors to treat any and all information provided to, or obtained by, the litigation support contractor as sensitive information, regardless of whether that information is marked with a restrictive legend. While not obviating the need, desire, or value of using restrictive legends on sensitive information, this approach ensures the protection of all sensitive information, even when inadvertent error or oversight results in a restrictive legend being omitted from the information.

The new solicitation provision at 252.204-7013, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Solicitation Offerors, sets forth the same limitations and notifications in 252.204-7014 for litigation support solicitation offerors.

The new clause at 252.204-7015, Disclosure of Information to Litigation Support Contractors, implements the second of the two-prong policy approach by providing notice to all offerors and contractors that information they may submit to DoD may be disclosed to litigation support contractors. The notice clarifies that such releases to litigation support contractors are authorized notwithstanding any other provision of the contract. This notice is not required by the statute, nor is it otherwise required as a condition of DoD being authorized to make the disclosures covered by 10 U.S.C. section 129d. The notice is provided as a desired best practice when DoD will be receiving potentially sensitive information from its offerors or contractors, to ensure that the submitters are aware of this potential, statutorily authorized release in connection with litigation support services.

The term “litigation information” is created to capture all information that is generated or obtained by the litigation support contractor in providing the litigation support services to DoD, including but not limited to sensitive information. The creation of the new term “litigation information” was particularly important for the implementation of this approach. The foundation of litigation support services is based in large part on the understanding that any or all information involved in providing these services must be treated as sensitive, official use only information, which cannot be shared with any unauthorized persons or used for any other purpose without careful review and approval by the appropriate Government officials.

To avoid any potential confusion regarding the application of requirements for “covered Government support contractors” to “litigation support contractors,” a parenthetical exclusion of litigation support contractors from such requirements is added at: 227.7103-6(c) and 227.7203-6(d); and 252.227-7013(a)(5), 252.227-7014(a)(6), 252.227-7015(a)(2), and 252.227-7018(a)(6).

III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

DoD has prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis consistent with 5 U.S.C. 603. A copy of the analysis may be obtained from the point of contact specified herein. The analysis is summarized as follows:

The objective of the rule is to implement authority for DoD to allow its litigation support contractors to have access to sensitive information, provided that the litigation support contractor is subject to certain restrictions on using and disclosing such information.

DoD does not expect this interim rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because DoD activities using litigation support contractors are generally already using very restrictive nondisclosure agreements to govern any sensitive information that may be provided to, or developed or discovered by, the litigation support contractors in providing litigation support services for DoD. These DoD activities will likely review their current practices and make any necessary modifications to ensure that there are no inconsistencies with the new requirements. However, at this time DoD is unable to estimate the number of small entities to which this rule will apply. Therefore, DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2012-D029) in correspondence.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

The rule contains no new information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

VI. Determination To Issue an Interim Rule

A determination has been made under the authority of the Secretary of Defense that urgent and compelling reasons exist to publish an interim rule prior to affording the public an opportunity to comment. Section 802 amends title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.), by adding section 129d to authorize an exception to the statutory scheme that would otherwise prohibit Government litigation support contractors from accessing or using sensitive information, defined as “confidential commercial, financial, or proprietary information, technical data, or other privileged information,” belonging to prime contractors and other third parties, provided that the support contractor is subject to appropriate non-disclosure and use restrictions. Additionally, 10 U.S.C. 129d mandates specific restrictions for the litigation support contractors that will receive the sensitive information, to ensure that this use does not threaten the data owner's competitive advantage due to the proprietary information, and to provide the data owner with a legal remedies against the support contractor for any breach of those use restrictions. Failure to issue this rule as an interim rule will severely impact the Government's ability to obtain administrative, technical or professional services, including expert or technical consultation, in support of the Government during or in anticipation of litigation, thereby adversely affecting the Government's ability to successfully engage in legal proceedings. However, pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 1707 and FAR 1.501-3(b), DoD will consider public comments received in response to this interim rule in the formation of the final rule.

PART 204—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS2. Add subpart 204.74 to read as follows:SUBPART 204.74—DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO LITIGATION SUPPORT CONTRACTORSSec.204.7400 Scope of subpart.204.7401 Definitions.204.7402 Policy.204.7403 Solicitation provision and contract clauses.SUBPART 204.74—DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO LITIGATION SUPPORT CONTRACTORS204.7400 Scope of subpart.

This subpart prescribes policies and procedures for the release and safeguarding of information to litigation support contractors. It implements the requirements at 10 U.S.C. 129d.

204.7401 Definitions.

“Litigation support,” “litigation support contractor,” and “sensitive information,” as used in this subpart, are defined in the clause at 252.204-7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors.

204.7402 Policy.

(a) Any release or disclosure of litigation information that includes sensitive information to a litigation support contractor, and the litigation support contractor's use and handling of such information, shall comply with the requirements of 10 U.S.C. 129d.

(b) To the maximum extent practicable, DoD will provide notice to an offeror or contractor submitting, delivering, or otherwise providing information to DoD in connection with an offer or performance of a contract that such information may be released or disclosed to litigation support contractors.

204.7403 Solicitation provision and contract clauses.

(a) Use the provision at 252.204-7013, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Solicitation Offerors, in all solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that involve litigation support services.

(b) Use the clause at 252.204-7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors, in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that involve litigation support services.

(c) Use the clause at 252.204-7015, Disclosure of Information to Litigation Support Contractors, in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial items, that involve litigation support services and do not include the clause at 252.204-7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors.

PART 212—ACQUISITION OF COMMERCIAL ITEMS3. Amend section 212.301 by—a. Redesignating paragraphs (f)(vii) through (lxvii) as (f)(x) through (lxx); andb. Adding new paragraphs (f)(vii), (viii), and (ix) to read as follows:212.301 Solicitation provisions and contract clauses for the acquisition of commercial items.

(f) * * *

(vii) Use the provision at 252.204-7013, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Solicitation Offerors, as prescribed in 204.7403(a), to comply with 10 U.S.C. 129d.

(viii) Use the clause at 252.204-7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors, as prescribed in 204.7403(b), to comply with 10 U.S.C. 129d.

(ix) Use the clause at 252.204-7015, Disclosure of Information to Litigation Support Contractors, as prescribed in 204.7403(c), to comply with 10 U.S.C. 129d.

PART 227—PATENTS, DATA, AND COPYRIGHTS4. In section 227.7100, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:227.7100 Scope of subpart.

227.7103-6 [Amended]5. Amend section 227.7103-6 by removing the phrase “Government will provide the contractor,” and adding in its place “Government will provide the contractor (other than a litigation support contractor covered by 252.204-7014),”.6. In section 227.7200, revise paragraph (b) to read as follows:227.7200 Scope of subpart.

227.7203-6 [Amended]7. Section 227.7203-6 is amended by removing the phrase “Government will provide the contractor,” and adding in its place “Government will provide the contractor (other than a litigation support contractor covered by 252.204-7014),”.PART 237—SERVICE CONTRACTING8. Add section 237.174 to read as follows:237.174 Disclosure of information to litigation support contractors.

See 204.74 for disclosure of information to litigation support contractors.

PART 252—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES9. Add section 252.204-7013 to read as follows:252.204-7013 Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Solicitation Offerors.

As prescribed in 204.7403(a), use the following provision. If the solicitation is a request for quotations, the terms “quotation” and “Quoter” may be substituted for “offer” and “Offeror”.

LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY LITIGATION SUPPORT SOLICITATION OFFERORS (FEB 2014)

(a) Definitions. As used in this provision:

Computer software, litigation information, litigation support, sensitive information, and technical data, are defined in the clause at DFARS 252.204-7014, Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors.

(b) Limitations on use or disclosure of litigation information. Notwithstanding any other provision of this solicitation, by submission of its offer, the Offeror agrees and acknowledges—

(1) That all litigation information will be accessed and used for the sole purpose of providing litigation support;

(2) That the Offeror will take all precautions necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of litigation information; and

(3) That litigation information shall not be used by the Offeror to compete against a third party for Government or nongovernment contracts.

(c) Indemnification and creation of third party beneficiary rights. By submission of its offer, the Offeror agrees—

(1) To indemnify and hold harmless the Government, its agents, and employees from any claim or liability, including attorneys' fees, court costs, and expenses, arising out of, or in any way related to, the misuse or unauthorized modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, or disclosure of any litigation information; and

(2) That any third party holding proprietary rights or any other legally protectable interest in any litigation information, in addition to any other rights it may have, is a third party beneficiary who shall have a right of direct action against the Offeror, and against any person to whom the Offeror has released or disclosed such data or software, for the unauthorized duplication, release, or disclosure of such information.

(d) Offeroremployees. By submission of its offer, the Offeror agrees to ensure that its employees are subject to use and nondisclosure obligations consistent with this provision prior to the employees being provided access to or use of any litigation information covered by this provision.

(End of provision)10. Add section 252.204-7014 to read as follows:252.204-7014 Limitations on the Use or Disclosure of Information by Litigation Support Contractors.

As prescribed in 204.7403(b), use the following clause:

LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OR DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION BY LITIGATION SUPPORT CONTRACTORS (FEB 2014)

Litigation information means any information, including sensitive information, that is furnished to the contractor by or on behalf of the Government, or that is generated or obtained by the contractor in the performance of litigation support work under this contract.

Litigation support means administrative, technical, or professional services provided in support of the Government during or in anticipation of litigation.

Litigation support contractor means a contractor (including an expert or technical consultant) providing litigation support under a contract with the Department of Defense that contains this clause.

Sensitive information means confidential information of a commercial, financial, proprietary, or privileged nature. The term includes technical data and computer software, but does not include information that is lawfully, publicly available without restriction.

Technical data means recorded information, regardless of the form or method of the recording, of a scientific or technical nature (including computer software documentation). The term does not include computer software or data incidental to contract administration, such as financial and/or management information.

(b) Limitations on use or disclosure of litigation information. Notwithstanding any other provision of this contract, the Contractor agrees and acknowledges—

(1) That all litigation information will be accessed and used for the sole purpose of providing litigation support;

(2) That the Contractor will take all precautions necessary to prevent unauthorized disclosure of litigation information;

(3) That litigation information shall not be used by the Contractor to compete against a third party for Government or nongovernment contracts; and

(4) That violation of paragraph (b)(1), (b)(2), or (b)(3), of this section, is a basis for the Government to terminate this contract.

(c) Indemnification and creation of third party beneficiary rights. The Contractor agrees—

(1) To indemnify and hold harmless the Government, its agents, and employees from any claim or liability, including attorneys' fees, court costs, and expenses, arising out of, or in any way related to, the misuse or unauthorized modification, reproduction, release, performance, display, or disclosure of any litigation information; and

(2) That any third party holding proprietary rights or any other legally protectable interest in any litigation information, in addition to any other rights it may have, is a third party beneficiary under this contract who shall have a right of direct action against the Contractor, and against any person to whom the Contractor has released or disclosed such data or software, for the unauthorized duplication, release, or disclosure of such information.

(d) Contractoremployees. The Contractor shall ensure that its employees are subject to use and nondisclosure obligations consistent with this clause prior to the employees being provided access to or use of any litigation information covered by this clause.

(e) Flowdown. Include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (e), in all subcontracts, including subcontracts for commercial items.

(End of clause)11. Add section 252.204-7015 to read as follows:252.204-7015 Disclosure of Information to Litigation Support Contractors.

As prescribed in 204.7403(c), use the following clause:

DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO LITIGATION SUPPORT CONTRACTORS (FEB 2014)

(a) Definitions. As used in this clause:

Litigation support means administrative, technical, or professional services provided in support of the Government during or in anticipation of litigation.

Litigation support contractor means a contractor (including an expert or technical consultant) providing litigation support under a contract with the Department of Defense that contains this clause.

Sensitive information means confidential information of a commercial, financial, proprietary, or privileged nature. The term includes technical data and computer software, but does not include information that is lawfully, publicly available without restriction.

(b) Authorized disclosure. Notwithstanding any other provision of this solicitation or contract, the Government may disclose to a litigation support contractor, for the sole purpose of litigation support activities, any information, including sensitive information, received—

(1) Within or in connection with a quotation or offer; or

(2) In the performance of or in connection with a contract.

(c) Flowdown. Include the substance of this clause, including this paragraph (c), in all subcontracts, including subcontracts for commercial items.

(End of clause)252.227-7013 [Amended]12. Amend section 252.227-7013 by—a. Removing the clause date (JUN 2013) and adding in its place (FEB 2014); andb. In paragraph (a)(5), removing the phrase “Covered Government support contractor means a contractor” and adding in its place “Covered Government support contractor means a contractor (other than a litigation support contractor covered by 252.204-7014)”.252.227-7014 [Amended]13. Amend section 252.227-7014 by—a. Removing the clause date (MAY 2013) and adding in its place (FEB 2014); andb. In paragraph (a)(6), removing the phrase “Covered Government support contractor means a contractor” and adding in its place “Covered Government support contractor means a contractor (other than a litigation support contractor covered by 252.204-7014)”.252.227-7015 [Amended]14. Amend section 252.227-7015 by—a. Removing the clause date (JUN 2013) and adding in its place (FEB 2014); andb. In paragraph (a)(2), removing the phrase “Covered Government support contractor means a contractor” and adding in its place “Covered Government support contractor means a contractor (other than a litigation support contractor covered by 252.204-7014)”.252.227-7018 [Amended]15. Amend section 252.227-7018 by—a. Removing the clause date (MAY 2013) and adding in its place (FEB 2014); andb. In paragraph (a)(6), removing the phrase “Covered Government support contractor means a contractor” and adding in its place “Covered Government support contractor means a contractor (other than a litigation support contractor covered by 252.204-7014)”.[FR Doc. 2014-04159 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 5001-06-PDEPARTMENT OF DEFENSEDefense Acquisition Regulations System 48 CFR Parts 204, 225, and 252Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Technical AmendmentsAGENCY:

PART 204—ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS204.1105[Amended]2. Section 204.1105 is amended by removing the word “clause” and adding the word “provision” in its place.204.7103-1 [Amended]3. Section 204.7103-1 is amended, in paragraph (d), by removing “See 204.7105(a).” and adding “See 204.7105.” in its place.PART 225—AMENDED225.004 [Redesignated as 225.070]4. Section 225.004 is redesignated as 225.070 and revised to read as follows:225.070 Reporting of acquisition of end products manufactured outside the United States.

Follow the procedures at PGI 225.070 for entering the data on the acquisition of end products manufactured outside the United States.

DoD has adopted as final, with changes, an interim rule amending the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to implement two sections of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 that require compliance with domestic source restrictions in the case of any textile components supplied by DoD to the Afghan National Army or the Afghan National Police for purposes of production of uniforms, and eliminate the application of the enhanced authority to acquire products and services from Iraq.

DATES:

Effective February 28, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Amy G. Williams, telephone 571-372-6106.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. Background

DoD published an interim rule to implement sections 826 and 842 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239).

Section 826 requires compliance with 10 U.S.C. 2533a (the Berry Amendment) in the case of any textile components supplied by DoD to the Afghan National Army or the Afghan National Police for purposes of production of uniforms. The law further states that no exception or exemptions under that section shall apply.

Section 842 modifies section 886 of the NDAA for FY 2008 (Pub. L. 110-181), which provided enhanced authority to acquire products and services from Iraq and Afghanistan in support of operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. Section 842 eliminates application of the enhanced authority to acquisition of products and services from Iraq.

One respondent submitted a public comment in response to the interim rule.

II. Discussion and Analysis

DoD reviewed the public comment in the development of the final rule. A discussion of the comment is provided below. No changes are made to the final based on this comment, however, one change is being made to correct the electronic Code of Federal Regulations.

A. Analysis of Public Comment

Comment: The respondent stated that under the interim rule, DFARS 225.7703-4(f) and (g) state that certain provisions and clauses prescribed in DFARS subpart 225.11 should not be used when certain provisions and clauses prescribed in 225.7703-4 are included. The respondent asserts that the prescriptions for the affected provisions and clauses in DFARS subpart 225.11 should contain these exceptions, but do not.

Response: Paragraphs (f) and (g) of DFARS 225.7703-4 were not added by the interim rule but were just redesignated from prior paragraphs (e) and (f). The prescriptions for the provisions and clauses addressed in 225.7703-4(f) and (g) do contain the appropriate exceptions, which are summarized below.

• 252.225-7000 is prescribed at 225.1101(1) for use only when the clause at 252.225-7001 is used.

• 252.225-7001 is prescribed at 225.1101(2). Paragraph (i)(C) of the prescription provides an exception if all line items will be acquired using a procedure specified in 225.7703-1(a). Use of the procedures at 225.7703-1(a) requires use of provisions and clauses 252.225-7023, 252.225-7024, or 252.225-7024.

• 252.225-7002 is prescribed at 225.1101(3) for use only when 252.225-7001, 252.225-7021, or 252.225-7036 are used. Since an exception is provided for the use of 252.225-7001 and 252.225-7036 when using the procedures at 225.7703-1(a), and 252.225-7021 is not included if 252.225-7026 is included, these exceptions also apply to the use of 252.225-7002.

• 252.225-7020 is prescribed at 225.1101((5) for use only when 252.225-7021 is used.

• 252.225-7021 is prescribed for use at 225.1101(6). Paragraph (iii)(B) of the prescription provides an exception if the clause at 252.225-7026 is included in the solicitation and contract.

• 252.225-7035 is prescribed at 225.1101((9) for use only when 252.225-7036 is used.

• 252.225-7036 is prescribed for use at 225.1101(10). Paragraph (iii)(C) of the prescription provides an exception if using the procedures specified in 225.7703-1(a).

• 252.225-7045 and 252.225-7046 are prescribed for use at 225.7503, unless the entire acquisition is exempt from the Balance of Payments program. The policy at 225.7501(a)(5) exempts acquisitions when use of a procedure specified in 225.7703-1(a) is authorized for an acquisition in support of operations in Afghanistan.

B. Other Changes

Section 225.1101(6)(i) is being revised to correct the electronic Code of Federal Regulations. In the prescription for clause 252.225-7021, the phrase “instead of the clause at FAR 52.225-5, Trade Agreements,” which had been inadvertently omitted, is reinstated.

III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

A final regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., and is summarized as follows:

This rule implements sections 826 and 842 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (Pub. L. 112-239). The objective of the rule is to (1) require compliance with domestic source restrictions in the case of any textile components supplied by DoD to the Afghan National Army or the Afghan National Police for purposes of production of uniforms, and (2) eliminate the application of the enhanced authority to acquire products and services from Iraq. The legal basis is the above-cited statutes.

The number of small entities to be affected by the rule is not known. The rule has the potential to impact entities that manufacture textile components, if purchased by DoD to supply to the Afghan National Army or the Afghan National Police for purposes of production of uniforms. Any impact is expected to be beneficial, because it will require purchase from a domestic source.

No comments were received from the public on the Regulatory Flexibility analysis. No comments were received from the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

There are no projected reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements.

DoD was unable to identify any significant alternatives consistent with the stated objectives of the statute. DoD does not anticipate any significant economic impact on small entities. Any impact is expected to be beneficial.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

The rule contains information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35); however, these changes to the DFARS do not impose additional information collection requirements to the paperwork burden previously approved under OMB Control Number 0704-0229, entitled Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement; Part 225 and Related Clauses (Total approved burden hours—57,135).

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 206, 212, 225, and 252

Government procurement.

Manuel Quinones,Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

Therefore, DoD amends 48 CFR parts 206, 212, 225, and 252 as follows:

PART 225-FOREIGN ACQUISITION1. The authority citation for part 225 continues to read as follows:Authority:

41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR Chapter 1.

225.1101[Amended]2. Section 225.1101(6)(i) is amended by removing “Use the clause at 252.225-7021, Trade Agreements, in solicitations and contracts,” and adding in its place “Use the clause at 252.225-7021, Trade Agreements, instead of the clause at FAR 52.225-5, Trade Agreements, in solicitations and contracts,”.[FR Doc. 2014-04152 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 5001-06-PDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration50 CFR Part 660[Docket No. 130822744-4144-02]RIN 0648-BD63Fisheries Off West Coast States; Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; Change to Start of Pacific Sardine Fishing YearAGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

NMFS issues this final rule to change the starting date of the annual Pacific sardine fishery from January 1 to July 1. This changes the annual fishing season from one based on the calendar year to one based on a July 1 through the following June 30th schedule. No other changes to the annual allocation structure are being made and the existing seasonal allocation percentages will remain as specified in the FMP, as would the current quota roll-over provisions. This rule also establishes a one-time interim harvest allocation period from January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014 to allow for continued fishing during the transition from a January to July start of the fishing season. The purpose of this final rule is to better align the timing of the research and science that is used in the annual stock assessments with the annual management schedule. To enable this transition in fishing years, this action also establishes a one-time interim harvest period for the 6 months from January 1, 2014, through June 30, 2014.

DATES:

Effective March 31, 2014.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Joshua Lindsay, West Coast Region, NMFS, (562) 980-4034.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule changes the start date of the 12-month Pacific sardine fishery from January 1 to July 1, thus changing the fishing season for Pacific sardine from one based on the calendar year to one beginning on July 1 and continuing through June 30th of the following year. The purpose of this change is to better align the timing of the research and science used in the annual stock assessments with the annual management schedule, as the present schedule imposes substantial challenges in terms of survey data availability relative to the timing of stock assessments.

Because the 2013 fishing season ended on December 31, 2013, this rule also establishes a one-time interim harvest allocation period from January 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014 to allow for continued fishing during the transition from a January to July start of the fishing season. At the November 2013 Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) meeting, the Council took action on setting the quota for the January 2014 through June 2014 period. The harvest specifications for this interim allocation period are being implemented through a separate rulemaking action, for which a proposed rule published on February 4, 2014. (79 FR 6527) Although the interim harvest specifications will include an Overfishing Limit (OFL), Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) and Annual Catch Limit (ACL) for calendar year 2014, those specifications are expected to be replaced based on the new stock assessment and Council action in April 2014.

On December 23, 2013, a proposed rule was published for this action and public comments solicited (78 FR 77413). NMFS received no comments on the proposed rule. For further background about this rule, please refer to the proposed rule.

Classification

Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the Assistant Administrator, NMFS, has determined that this final rule is consistent with the CPS FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and other applicable laws.

This rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.

This action does not contain a collection-of-information requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act.

(f) On July 1, 40 percent of the initial harvest guideline for Pacific sardine is allocated coastwide within the fishery management area.

(g) On September 15, 25 percent of the initial harvest guideline for Pacific sardine plus the remaining unharvested portion of the July 1 allocation in paragraph (f) of this section is allocated coastwide within the fishery management area.

(h) On January 1, 35 percent of the initial harvest guideline for Pacific sardine plus the remaining unharvested portion of the September 15 allocation is allocated coastwide within the fishery management area.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Proposed determination.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the “Department”) has determined tentatively that computer and battery backup systems (hereafter referred to as “computer systems”) qualify as a covered product under Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended. This notice supersedes DOE's previous proposed determination of coverage relating to computers, and expands the scope of coverage to include computer systems. DOE has determined that computer systems meet the criteria for covered products because classifying products of such type as covered products is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA, and the average U.S. household energy use for computer systems is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year.

DATES:

DOE will accept written comments, data, and information on this notice, but no later than March 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2013-BT-DET-0035, by any of the following methods:

On July 12, 2013, DOE published a proposed determination (July 2013 Notice) in the Federal Register (78 FR 41873) tentatively determining that computers qualify as a covered product under Part A of Title III of EPCA, as amended. The Department is superseding the July 2013 Notice with this updated notice.

II. Authority

Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,” which covers consumer products and certain commercial products (hereafter referred to as “covered products”).1 In addition to specifying a list of covered residential and commercial products, EPCA contains provisions that enable the Secretary of Energy to classify additional types of consumer products as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)) DOE may prescribe test procedures for any product it classifies as a “covered product.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)) For a given product to be classified as a covered product, the Secretary must determine that:

1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. code, Part B was re-designated Part A.

(1) Classifying the product as a covered product is necessary for the purposes of EPCA; and

(2) The average annual per-household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year. (42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1))

For the Secretary to prescribe an energy conservation standard pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) for covered products added pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1), he must also determine that:

(1) The average household energy use of the products has exceeded 150 kWh per household for a 12-month period;

(2) The aggregate 12-month energy use of the products has exceeded 4.2 TWh;

(3) Substantial improvement in energy efficiency is technologically feasible; and

(4) Application of a labeling rule under 42 U.S.C. 6294 is unlikely to be sufficient to induce manufacturers to produce, and consumers and other persons to purchase, covered products of such type (or class) that achieve the maximum energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1)).

If DOE issues a final determination that computer systems are a covered product, DOE will consider test procedures and energy conservation standards for them. DOE will determine if computer systems satisfy the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(1) during the course of any energy conservation standards rulemaking.

III. Discussion

In the July 2013 Notice, DOE tentatively determined that computers qualify as a covered product. DOE further proposed that a definition for computers be added to the Code of Federal Regulations to clarify coverage of any potential test procedure or energy conservation standard. Accordingly, DOE proposed the following definition of computers and sought comment from interested parties:

A consumer product which performs logical operations and processes data. A computer is composed of, at a minimum: (a) A central processing unit (CPU) to perform operations, or the ability to function as a client gateway to a server which acts as a computational CPU; (b) user input devices such as a keyboard, mouse, or touchpad; and (c) an integrated display screen and/or the ability to support an external display screen to output information. 78 FR 41874.

By separate action published elsewhere in today's Federal Register, DOE is withdrawing its proposed rule to determine servers as a covered product. Upon further consideration, DOE believes that computers and servers share numerous technical and physical characteristics which would make it more appropriate to cover them together as a single covered product. Because battery backup functions are closely tied to computers and servers, DOE believes that backup batteries such as uninterruptible power supplies (UPSs), which provide emergency power in case of failure, should also be included in the covered product to which this notice relates. Thus, DOE is proposing that the name of the covered product in this notice be changed to “computer and battery backup systems” and be defined as:

A consumer product whose primary function is to perform logical operations and process data, or equipment whose primary function is to maintain continuity of load power for such products in case of input power failure.

While DOE recognizes that this revised definition further broadens the scope of the covered product that this notice relates, DOE believes that is necessary given the increasingly networked environment in which these products operate. For example, the increased use of tablets, smart phones and cloud services has shifted energy use from personal computers like desktop and notebook computers to servers (e.g. more disc storage in servers, less disc storage in desktop computers). Consumers commonly use battery backups for their computers to allow users to save all data in the event of power loss. Some servers integrate these backup batteries within the server itself, and notebook computers contain their own battery systems to run when either not connected to mains power or in the event of a power loss. This revised definition would allow DOE to account for shifts in energy use between products, and also help to ensure that the covered product remains relevant as technology trends in computer systems advance. Based on DOE's revised definition for computer systems, DOE would consider consumer products, such as computers, servers, and UPSs, to be within the scope of coverage.

While all of these consumer products are related, DOE recognizes that different test methods and efficiency metrics would be necessary to measure the energy consumption and energy efficiency of such products. As such, DOE is considering dividing computer systems into separate product classes based on the type of energy used, the capacity, and any other performance-related feature that justifies different standard levels, such as features affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE will propose specific definitions for product classes as part of the efficiency standards rulemaking. As suggested by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), DOE will look to harmonize the definitions of each potential product class with already established industry terms and definitions (ITI, No. 0035 at p.1).

DOE notes that the scope for the test procedure and standards rulemakings that DOE initiates may not cover all products that would otherwise meet the definition of computer systems. DOE further clarifies that the proposed definition of computer systems only covers those products whose primary function is to perform logical operations and process data, or whose primary function is to maintain continuity of load power in case of input power failure.

DOE received comment from Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco), ITI, the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), and Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) on DOE's proposed definition of “server” in its July 12, 2013 proposed rule to determine servers as a covered product (78 FR 41868). Specifically, these parties commented that the proposal improperly attempts to combine a variety of consumer products, which DOE has authority to regulate, with entirely dissimilar commercial products that DOE does not currently have the authority to regulate. (EERE-2013-BT-DET-0034, Cisco, No. 0017 at p. 3) (EERE-2013-BT-DET-0034, ITI, No. 0018 at p. 1) (EERE-2013-BT-DET-0034, CEA, No. 0015 at p. 3) (EERE-2013-BT-DET-0034, TIA, No. 0019 at p. 2) In light of these comments, DOE clarifies that the proposed scope of coverage for this rulemaking relates only to consumer products. Thus, this rule applies to those computer systems that are of a type which, to any significant extent, are distributed into commerce for personal use or consumption. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1). These consumer products can be distinguished from commercial/industrial equipment, which are of a type not sold for consumer use. See 42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(A). DOE is seeking assistance from interested parties in identifying those computer systems that are of a type that make them a consumer product as distinguished from those that are objectively commercial.

The following sections describe DOE's evaluation of whether computer systems fulfill the criteria for being added as a covered product pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1). As stated previously, DOE may classify a consumer product as a covered product if (1) classifying products of such type as covered products is necessary and appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA; and (2) the average annual per-household energy use by products of such type is likely to exceed 100 kWh (or its Btu equivalent) per year.

A. Coverage Necessary or Appropriate to Carry Out Purposes of EPCA

Coverage of computer systems is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA, which include: (1) To conserve energy supplies through energy conservation programs, and, where necessary, the regulation of certain energy uses; and (2) to provide for improved energy efficiency of motor vehicles, major appliances, and certain other consumer products. (42 U.S.C. 6201) The aggregate energy use of computer systems is significant. For example, recent estimates of national electricity usage for computers alone are 30.3 billion kWh in the residential sector, and 31.3 billion kWh in the commercial sector.2 For servers, total national electricity usage is estimated to be 26.5 billion kWh as a lower bound.3 The national energy use of UPSs is estimated to be at least 6.9 billion kWh.4 The penetration of computer systems in the residential sector is high, with 63% of U.S. households owning a desktop computer, 65% of U.S. households owning a notebook, laptop, or netbook computer, and an installed base of 8.6 million UPSs in U.S. households.5 Coverage of computer systems will enable the conservation of energy supplies through both labeling programs and the regulation of computer systems energy efficiency. There is significant variation in the annual energy consumption of different models currently available for computers, servers, and UPSs. Therefore, technologies exist to reduce the energy consumption of computer systems.

DOE calculated average household energy use for computer systems, in households that use the product, based on data from published literature and under the assumption that computer systems contain at least one computer or server, and possibly a UPS as well. The average annual energy use for a desktop computer was estimated to be 220 kWh/yr, and the average annual energy use for a portable computer was estimated to be 62 kWh/yr, resulting in a weighted average of 130 kWh/yr per computer.6 In addition, there are an estimated 1.4 desktop computers and 1.9 portable computers per household that owns these devices in the U.S.,7 thus the total average household energy consumption of computers is likely higher than these estimations. The estimated annual energy consumption of individual servers ranges from approximately 1900-2100 kWh/yr for mass-produced volume servers.8 Under the assumption that households that use servers would have at most one of these types of servers, DOE estimated the average annual household energy use for households that use servers to be at least 1900 kWh/yr. The average annual per-unit energy use of ENERGY STAR-qualified UPSs is approximately 190 kWh/yr (including only standby and line-interactive UPSs, and assuming an average load of 0.7 of rated output power).9 Therefore, DOE tentatively determines that the average annual per-household energy use for computer systems is likely to exceed 100 kWh/yr, satisfying the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6292(b)(1).

Based on the above, DOE has determined tentatively that computer systems qualify as a covered product under Part A of Title III of the EPCA, as amended.

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

DOE has reviewed its proposed determination of computer systems under the following Executive orders and Acts.

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that coverage determination rulemakings do not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this proposed action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule that, by law, must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the proposed rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis examines the impact of the rule on small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing negative effects. Also, as required by E.O. 13272, “Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking” 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003 to ensure that the potential impact of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990 (February 19, 2003). DOE makes its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's Web site at www.gc.doe.gov./gc/office-general-counsel.

DOE reviewed today's proposed determination under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. If adopted, today's proposed determination would set no standards; it would only positively determine that future standards may be warranted and should be explored in an energy conservation standards and test procedure rulemaking. Economic impacts on small entities would be considered in the context of such rulemakings. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, would have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this proposed determination. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This proposed determination, which proposes to determine that computer systems meet the criteria for a covered product for which the Secretary may prescribe an energy conservation standard pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p), will impose no new information or record-keeping requirements. Accordingly, OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

In this notice, DOE proposes to positively determine that future standards may be warranted and that environmental impacts should be explored in an energy conservation standards rulemaking. DOE has determined that review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Public Law 91-190, codified at 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. is not required at this time. NEPA review can only be initiated “as soon as environmental impacts can be meaningfully evaluated” (10 CFR 1021.213(b)). This proposed determination would only determine that future standards may be warranted, but would not itself propose to set any specific standard. DOE has, therefore, determined that there are no environmental impacts to be evaluated at this time. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order (E.O.) 13132, “Federalism” 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to assess carefully the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in developing regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process that it will follow in developing such regulations. 65 FR 13735 (March 14, 2000). DOE has examined today's proposed determination and concludes that it would not preempt State law or have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the Federal government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the product that is the subject of today's proposed determination. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent permitted, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by E.O. 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the duty to: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation specifies the following: (1) The preemptive effect, if any; (2) any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) the retroactive effect, if any; (5) definitions of key terms; and (6) other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether these standards are met, or whether it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed determination meets the relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4, codified at 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. For regulatory actions likely to result in a rule that may cause expenditures by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any 1 year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a) and (b)) UMRA requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate.” UMRA also requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to small governments that may be potentially affected before establishing any requirement that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820 (March 18, 1997). (This policy also is available at www.gc.doe.gov). DOE reviewed today's proposed determination pursuant to these existing authorities and its policy statement and determined that the proposed determination contains neither an intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so the UMRA requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed determination would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE determined that this proposed determination would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 2001

The Treasury and General Government Appropriation Act of 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) requires agencies to review most disseminations of information they make to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed today's proposed determination under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

E.O. 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates a final rule or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the proposal is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.

DOE has concluded that today's regulatory action proposing to determine that computer systems meet the criteria for a covered product for which the Secretary may prescribe an energy conservation standard pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) and (p) would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. This action is also not a significant regulatory action for purposes of E.O. 12866, and the OIRA Administrator has not designated this proposed determination as a significant energy action under E.O. 12866 or any successor order. Therefore, this proposed determination is not a significant energy action. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects for this proposed determination.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (January 14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the Federal government, including influential scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the Bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific information. DOE has determined that the analyses conducted for this rulemaking do not constitute “influential scientific information,” which the Bulletin defines as “scientific information the agency reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” 70 FR 2667 (January 14, 2005). The analyses were subject to pre-dissemination review prior to issuance of this rulemaking.

DOE will determine the appropriate level of review that would be applicable to any future rulemaking to establish energy conservation standards for computer systems.

VI. Public ParticipationA. Submission of Comments

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed determination no later than the date provided at the beginning of this notice. After the close of the comment period, DOE will review the comments received and determine whether computer systems are a covered product under EPCA.

Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE's email address for this proposed determination should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Submissions should avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption, and wherever possible comments should include the electronic signature of the author. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document should have all the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination.

Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat submitted information as confidential include (1) A description of the items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known or available from public sources; (4) whether the information has previously been made available to others without obligations concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the competitive injury to the submitting persons which would result from public disclosure; (6) a date after which such information might no longer be considered confidential; and (7) why disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments

DOE welcomes comments on all aspects of this proposed determination. DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments from interested parties on the following issues related to the proposed determination for computer systems:

• Definition of computer and battery backup systems;

• Whether classifying computer systems as a covered product is necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of EPCA;

• Scope of this proposed determination;

• Identifying those computer systems that are of a type that make them a consumer product as distinguished from those computer systems that are objectively commercial;

• Calculations and values for average household energy consumption; and

• Availability or lack of availability of technologies for improving energy efficiency of computer systems.

The Department is interested in receiving views concerning other relevant issues that participants believe would affect DOE's ability to establish test procedures and energy conservation standards for computer systems. The Department invites all interested parties to submit in writing by March 31, 2014, comments and information on matters addressed in this notice and on other matters relevant to consideration of a determination for computer systems.

After the expiration of the period for submitting written statements, the Department will consider all comments and additional information that is obtained from interested parties or through further analyses, and it will prepare a final determination. If DOE determines that computer systems qualify as a covered product, DOE will consider a test procedure and energy conservation standards for computer systems. Members of the public will be given an opportunity to submit written and oral comments on any proposed test procedure and standards.

VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this revised proposed determination.

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

ACTION:

Proposed determination; withdrawal.

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) withdraws for further consideration a proposed determination that computer servers (servers) qualify as a covered product under Part A of Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended.

Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291, et seq.) sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) established the “Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles,” which covers consumer products and certain commercial products (hereafter referred to as “covered products”).1 In addition to specifying a list of covered residential and commercial products, EPCA contains provisions that enable the Secretary of Energy to classify additional types of consumer products as covered products. (42 U.S.C. 6292(a)(20)) DOE may prescribe test procedures for any product it classifies as a “covered product.” (42 U.S.C. 6293(b))

1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. code, Part B was re-designated Part A.

II. Discussion

On July 12, 2013, DOE published a notice of proposed determination (Notice) that tentatively determined that servers qualify as a covered product. 78 FR 41868. In light of public comments received from interested parties addressing the nature and use of servers, DOE is withdrawing the Notice. DOE's current approach with regard to the coverage of servers can be found in its updated coverage proposal for computers, published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

On January 28, 2014, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) published in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking for public comment proposing to amend its regulations by relocating, consolidating, and modifying as necessary, certain Federal Housing Finance Board and Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight regulations that pertain to the responsibilities of boards of directors, corporate practices, and corporate governance matters. The proposed rule would also amend a definition within FHFA's Prudential Management and Operations Standards regulations and the introductory language to the standards themselves. The comment period for the proposed rule is set to expire on March 31, 2014 April 29, 2014. This document extends the comment period by an additional 45 days, through and including May 15, 2014, to allow the public additional time to comment on the proposed rule.

DATES:

The comment period for the proposed rule published January 28, 2014, at 79 FR 4414, is extended. Written comments must be received on or before May 15, 2014. For additional information, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit your comments, identified by regulatory information number (RIN) 2590-AA59, by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal:http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the instructions for submitting comments. If you submit your comment to the Federal eRulemaking Portal, please also send it by email to FHFA at RegComments@fhfa.gov to ensure timely receipt by FHFA. Include the following information in the subject line of your submission: Comments/RIN 2590-AA59.

• Email: Comments to Alfred M. Pollard, General Counsel may be sent by email to RegComments@fhfa.gov. Please include “RIN 2590-AA59” in the subject line of the message.

On January 28, 2014, FHFA published for comment in the Federal Register a proposed rule, and invited public comments. See 79 FR 4414. The comment period for the proposed rule is scheduled to close on March 31, 2014 (the 60th day after the date of publication). In response to requests from the Federal Home Loan Banks for additional time to review the proposed rule and provide comments, FHFA is extending the comment period for 45 days, changing the deadline for submitting comments on the proposed rule to May 15, 2014.

We propose to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2000-17-03 that applies to all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes. AD 2000-17-03 currently requires a one-time visual inspection and repetitive eddy current and dye penetrant inspections of the nose landing gear (NLG) main fitting to detect cracking of the NLG main fitting subassembly, and corrective actions if necessary. Since we issued AD 2000-17-03, we were advised that replacement of certain nose landing gear (NLG) units eliminates the need for repetitive inspections. This proposed AD would retain existing requirements, require installation a new part number NLG unit that would terminate the repetitive inspections, and add airplanes to the applicability. We are proposing this AD to prevent cracking of the NLG main fitting, which could lead to collapse of the NLG during takeoff and landing, and possible injury to the flight crew and passengers.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0062; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0062; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-031-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Since we issued AD 2000-17-03, Amendment 39-11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000), we received a report of a NLG main fitting failure. The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0002R1, dated March 30, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

In 1997, a report was received concerning a Fokker 100 (F28 Mark 0100) aeroplane, where during landing following nose wheel touch-down, the nose landing gear (NLG) broke off just below the pintle pins. Subsequent inspection by the affected operator of other aeroplanes in the fleet identified three more suspect NLG main fittings. Eddy current (EC) and/or dye penetrant inspections of these units later confirmed that cracks were present on the inner side of the downlock plunger support web. The total number of flight cycles (FC) accumulated by the cracked NLG main fittings at the time of detection were between 9,300 FC and 17,600 FC.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in further incidents of NLG collapse, possibly resulting in damage to the aeroplane and/or injury to the occupants. To address this potential unsafe condition, (Civil Aviation Authority —Netherlands] CAA-NL issued AD (BLA) 1997-116 (currently at issue 2) to require repetitive inspections of the NLG main fitting and, depending on findings, rework or replacement of the NLG main fitting.

Since AD (BLA) 1997-116/2 was issued, it was determined that replacement of a Messier-Dowty (M-D, formerly Dowty Rotol) Part Number (P/N) 201071001 or P/N 201071002 NLG with, respectively, a P/N 201071003 or P/N 201071004 (which have a so-called `heavy weight' main fitting installed) or, respectively, with a P/N 201456001 or P/N 201461001 (which are so-called `heavy weight' NLG units) cancels the need for repetitive inspection and/or rework. The `heavy weight' main fitting was originally developed for an increased weight version (101,000 lbs. maximum take-off weight) of the Fokker 100, as well as for the Fokker 70 (F28 Mark 0070), and introduced on the production line.

In January 2010, a second NLG main fitting failure occurred. The results of the investigation showed that the fracture started from small fatigue cracks in the affected area. Prompted by this new occurrence, combined with the NLG certification methodology (safe life principle), EASA has decided that the existing terminating action, installation of a P/N 201071003 or P/N 201071004 NLG should be made mandatory. Alternatively, a P/N 201456001 or P/N 201461001 NLG can be installed, which meets the same requirement.

Replacement of a NLG main fitting or of a NLG unit on an aeroplane constitutes terminating action for the repetitive inspections for that aeroplane.

EASA AD 2012-0002 also prohibits, after modification of an aeroplane, installation of a P/N 201071001 or P/N 201071002 NLG unit on that aeroplane.

This proposed AD expands the applicability to include all Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0100 airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0062.Relevant Service Information

Fokker Services B.V. has issued the following service bulletins:

• Fokker Services B.V. Service Bulletin SBF 100-32-119, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2011, which refers to Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-92, Revision 1, dated October 8, 1999, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the inspections and rework of the NLG main fitting subassembly.

The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

In many FAA transport ADs, when the service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for further instructions if certain discrepancies are found, we typically include in the AD a requirement to accomplish the action using a method approved by either the FAA or the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent).

We have recently been notified that certain laws in other countries do not allow such delegation of authority, but some countries do recognize design approval organizations. In addition, we have become aware that some U.S. operators have used repair instructions that were previously approved by a State of Design Authority or a Design Approval Holder (DAH) as a method of compliance with this provision in FAA ADs. Frequently, in these cases, the previously approved repair instructions come from the airplane structural repair manual or the DAH repair approval statements that were not specifically developed to address the unsafe condition corrected by the AD. Using repair instructions that were not specifically approved for a particular AD creates the potential for doing repairs that were not developed to address the unsafe condition identified by the MCAI AD, the FAA AD, or the applicable service information, which could result in the unsafe condition not being fully corrected.

To prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, certain requirements of this proposed AD specify that the repair approval specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change is intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we use the phrase “its delegated agent, or the DAH with State of Design Authority design organization approval, as applicable” in this proposed AD to refer to a DAH authorized to approve certain required repairs for this proposed AD.

Explanation of Changes Made to the Existing AD

On July 10, 2002, the FAA issued a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs the FAA's airworthiness directives system. The regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance (AMOCs). Because we have now included this material in 14 CFR part 39, only the office authorized to approve AMOCs is identified in each individual AD. Therefore, Notes 1 and 5 of AD 2000-17-03, Amendment 39-11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000), are not included in this NPRM. We have also revised Note 2 of AD 2000-17-03 to lettered paragraph (h) in this NPRM (this change does not affect the intent of that Note) and removed Note 3 of that AD because that information does not apply to the new actions specified in this NPRM.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 4 airplanes of U.S. registry.

The actions that are required by AD 2000-17-03, Amendment 39-11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000), and retained in this proposed AD take about 2 work-hours per product, at an average labor rate of $85 per work-hour. Required parts cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, the estimated cost of the actions that were required by AD 2000-17-03 is $170 per product.

We also estimate that it would take about 8 work-hours per product to comply with the new basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $525,000 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed there will be no charge for these parts. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,102,720, or $526,680 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

Paperwork Reduction Act

A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB control number. The control number for the collection of information required by this AD is 2120-0056. The paperwork cost associated with this AD has been detailed in the Costs of Compliance section of this document and includes time for reviewing instructions, as well as completing and reviewing the collection of information. Therefore, all reporting associated with this AD is mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, ATTN: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This AD was prompted by reports of nose landing gear (NLG) main fitting failures. We are issuing this AD to prevent cracking of the NLG main fitting, which could lead to collapse of the NLG during takeoff and landing, and possible injury to the flight crew and passengers.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(g) Retained One-Time Visual Inspection

This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (a) of AD 2000-17-03, Amendment 39-11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000). For airplanes equipped with Messier-Dowty nose landing gear (NLG) having part number (P/N) 201071001 or 201071002, on which a main fitting subassembly (MFSA) having P/N 201071200, 201071228, 201071248, or 201071249 is installed: Prior to the accumulation of 7,500 total flight cycles or within 50 flight cycles after October 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-17-03), whichever occurs later, perform a one-time detailed visual inspection of the NLG main fitting subassembly to detect cracking, in accordance with Part 1 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-118, dated October 8, 1999.

(1) If no cracking is detected, no further action is required by this paragraph.

(2) If any cracking is detected, prior to further flight, accomplish the actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD.

(h) Definition of a Detailed Visual Inspection

For the purposes of this AD, a detailed visual inspection is defined as: An intensive visual examination of a specific structural area, system, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure, or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a direct source of good lighting at intensity deemed appropriate by the inspector. Inspection aids such as mirrors, magnifying lenses, etc., may be used. Surface cleaning and elaborate access procedures may be required.

(i) Retained Repetitive Eddy Current and/or Dye Penetrant Inspections

This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (b) of AD 2000-17-03, Amendment 39-11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000), with a new exception. For airplanes equipped with Messier-Dowty nose landing gear (NLG) having part number (P/N) 201071001 or 201071002, on which a main fitting subassembly (MFSA) having P/N 201071200, 201071228, 201071248, or 201071249 is installed: Except as required by paragraph (g)(2) of this AD, prior to the accumulation of 7,875 total flight cycles, or within 375 flight cycles after October 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-17-03), whichever occurs later, perform an eddy current or dye penetrant inspection of the NLG main fitting subassembly to detect cracking, in accordance with Part 2 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-118, dated October 8, 1999 (which is incorporated by reference in AD 2000-17-03). Such inspection within the compliance time required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraph (g) of this AD. Repeat the inspection thereafter, using an eddy current or dye penetrant technique, at intervals not to exceed 750 flight cycles, except as required by paragraph (m)(1) of this AD. Repeat the inspection until the replacement specified in paragraph (l) of this AD is done, or the installation specified in paragraph (n) of this AD is done.

(j) Retained Rework of Main Fitting

This paragraph restates the actions required by paragraph (c) of AD 2000-17-03, Amendment 39-11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000), with revised repair methods. If any cracking is detected during any inspection required by paragraph (g) or (i) of this AD: Prior to further flight, rework the main fitting of the NLG, in accordance with Part 3 of the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-118, dated October 8, 1999 (which is incorporated by reference in AD 2000-17-03). If, after rework, any cracking remains that exceeds the limits specified in Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-118, dated October 8, 1999, prior to further flight, accomplish the actions specified by either paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this AD.

(1) Replace the NLG in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-118, dated October 8, 1999 (which is incorporated by reference in AD 2000-17-03); and within 7,875 flight cycles after such replacement, perform the inspection as specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, and repeat the inspection thereafter at intervals not to exceed 750 flight cycles.

(2) Repair in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD) (or its delegated agent); or the European Aviation Safety Agency (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with EASA's design organization approval, as applicable). For a repair method to be approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, as required by this paragraph, the Manager's approval letter must specifically reference AD 2000-17-03, Amendment 39-11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000). For a repair method to be approved as of the effective date of this AD, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.

Note 1 to paragraph (j) of this AD:

Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-118, dated October 8, 1999 (which is incorporated by reference in AD 2000-17-03), references Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-92, Revision 1, dated October 8, 1999, as an additional source of service information for accomplishing the inspections and rework of the NLG main fitting subassembly.

(1) For airplanes on which the detailed visual inspection specified by paragraph (g) of this AD, and the initial repetitive eddy current or dye penetrant inspection specified by paragraph (i) of this AD, are accomplished after October 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-17-03, Amendment 39-11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000)): Submit each report within 7 days after performing the applicable inspection.

(2) For airplanes on which the detailed visual inspection specified by paragraph (g) of this AD, and the initial repetitive eddy current or dye penetrant inspection specified in paragraph (i) of this AD, have been accomplished prior to October 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-17-03, Amendment 39-11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000)): Submit the reports within 7 days after October 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-17-03).

(l) New Requirement of This AD: Replacement

Except as provided by paragraph (m) of this AD, before the next scheduled main fitting overhaul of the nose landing gear (NLG) after the effective date of this AD, or within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first: Replace all nose landing gear (NLG) units having part number (P/N) 201071001 with a new P/N 201071003 NLG unit, and replace all NLG units having P/N 201071002 with a new P/N 201071004 NLG unit, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Services Bulletin SBF100-32-119, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2011.

(m) New Compliance Time Extension and On-Condition Actions

For airplanes on which the next scheduled main fitting overhaul of the NLG is to occur later than 36 months after the effective date of this AD: Operators may accomplish the replacement required by paragraph (l) of this AD before the next scheduled main fitting overhaul of the nose landing gear (NLG) after the effective date of this AD, or within 72 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, provided the actions specified in paragraphs (m)(1) and (m)(2) of this AD are done.

(1) Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD, accomplish the inspection specified in paragraph (i) of this AD within 750 flight cycles since the most recent inspection and repeat thereafter at intervals not to exceed 375 flight cycles until the replacement specified in paragraph (l) of this AD is done or the installation specified in paragraph (n) of this AD is done.

(2) In addition to the inspection specified in paragraph (m)(1) of this AD, do all other on-condition actions specified in paragraph 1.E(1)(b) of Fokker Services Bulletin SBF100-32-119, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2011, except where Fokker Services Bulletin SBF100-32-119, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2011, specifies to contact Fokker Services, before further flight, contact either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with EASA's design organization approval, as applicable) for instructions and follow those instructions. For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.

Note 1 to paragraph (l) of this AD:

Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-119, Revision 1, dated November 15, 2011, references Messier-Dowty Service Bulletin F100-32-94, dated January 5, 2000, as an additional source of service information for replacing the NLG unit.

(n) New Optional Action

Installing a new P/N 201456001 or P/N 201461001 NLG unit, in accordance with the Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-32-149, Revision 1, dated October 25, 2007, including Appendix 1, dated December 12, 2006, is acceptable for compliance with the replacement required by paragraph (l) of this AD, provided the installation is accomplished within the compliance time specified in paragraph (l) of this AD; and, except for airplanes that comply with paragraph (m) of this AD, provided the installation is accomplished within the compliance time specified in paragraph (m) of this AD.

(o) New Requirement: Concurrent Modification

Prior to, or concurrently with, the installation of the NLG unit required by paragraph (l) of this AD or the optional installation specified in paragraph (n) of this AD, modify the nose landing gear (NLG) bracket, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Services Bulletin SBF100-53-074, Revision 1, dated October 25, 2007.

(p) New Terminating Actions

Accomplishing the replacement specified in paragraph (l) of this AD or the installation specified in paragraph (n) of this AD terminates the repetitive eddy current or dye penetrant inspections required by paragraphs (i) and (m)(1) of this AD.

(q) New Parts Installation Prohibition

(1) For airplanes equipped with Messier-Dowty nose landing gear (NLG) having part number (P/N) 201071001 or 201071002, on which a main fitting subassembly (MFSA) having P/N 201071200, 201071228, 201071248, or 201071249 is installed: As of October 3, 2000 (the effective date of AD 2000-17-03, Amendment 39-11876 (65 FR 52298, August 29, 2000), and until the effective date of this AD: No person may install an NLG having P/N 201071001 or 201071002 unless the installed MFSA has been inspected, by means of an eddy current or dye penetrant inspection, and corrected in accordance with paragraph (i) of this AD.

(2) For all airplanes: As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install an NLG having P/N 201071001 or 201071002 on any airplane.

(r) Credit for Previous Actions

This paragraph provides credit for the replacement required by paragraph (l) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Fokker Services B.V. Service Bulletin SBF 100-32-119, dated January 31, 2000, provided part number 201071003 or 201071004 nose gear has been installed.

(s) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone 425-227-1137; fax 425-227-1149. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent, or the DAH with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval). You are required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(3) Reporting Requirements: A federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act unless that collection of information displays a current valid OMB Control Number. The OMB Control Number for this information collection is 2120-0056. Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to be approximately 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, completing and reviewing the collection of information. All responses to this collection of information are mandatory. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden and suggestions for reducing the burden should be directed to the FAA at: 800 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591, Attn: Information Collection Clearance Officer, AES-200.

(t) Related Information

(1) Refer to MCAI EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0002R1, dated March 30, 2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0062.

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus Model A300 B4-601, B4-603, B4-620, B4-622, -B4-605R, B4-622R, -F4-605R, F4-622R, and -C4-605R Variant F airplanes; and Model A310-203, -204, -221, -222, -304, -322, -324, and -325 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of inner skin disbonding damage on a rudder. This proposed AD would require repetitive ultrasonic inspections for disbonding of certain rudders; an elasticity of laminate checker inspection; a woodpecker or tap test inspection; venting the core, if necessary; and repairing, if necessary. We are proposing this AD to detect and correct rudder disbonding, which could affect the structural integrity of the rudder.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0123; or in person at the Docket Operations office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0123; Directorate Identifier 2013-NM-040-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0039, dated February 26, 2013 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

One A310 operator found substantial inner skin disbonding damage on a rudder that was previously inspected in accordance with the instructions of Airbus Service Bulletin (SB) A310-55-2044. The results of the subsequent investigation revealed that the most probable cause of this damage was a blunt impact with no visible damage from outside during the rudder handling. Damage like this might grow with pressure variation during ground-air-ground cycles, and tests performed with other rudders showed a rapid propagation of damage during artificial pressure cycling.

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could affect the structural integrity of the rudder.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires ultrasonic test (UT) inspections of the affected rudders to detect signs of disbonding and, depending on findings, accomplishment of applicable corrective action(s).

Required actions also include an elasticity of laminate checker inspection to detect external and internal disbonding, and a woodpecker or tap test inspection to detect external disbonding. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-* * *.Relevant Service Information

Airbus has issued Alert Operators Transmission A55W002-12, dated December 13, 2012. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Repair Approvals

In many FAA transport ADs, when the service information specifies to contact the manufacturer for further instructions if certain discrepancies are found, we typically include in the FAA AD a requirement to accomplish the action using a method approved by either the FAA or the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent).

We have recently been notified that certain laws in other countries do not allow such delegation of authority, but some countries do recognize design approval organizations. In addition, we have become aware that some U.S. operators have used repair instructions that were previously approved by a State of Design Authority or a Design Approval Holder (DAH) as a method of compliance with this provision in FAA ADs. Frequently, in these cases, the previously approved repair instructions come from the airplane structural repair manual or DAH repair approval statements that were not specifically developed to address the unsafe condition corrected by the AD. Using repair instructions that were not specifically approved for a particular AD creates the potential for doing repairs that were not developed to address the unsafe condition identified by the MCAI AD, the FAA AD, or the applicable service information, which could result in the unsafe condition not being fully corrected.

To prevent the use of repairs that were not specifically developed to correct the unsafe condition, certain requirements of this proposed AD specify that the repair approval specifically refer to the FAA AD. This change is intended to clarify the method of compliance and to provide operators with better visibility of repairs that are specifically developed and approved to correct the unsafe condition. In addition, we use the phrase “its delegated agent, or the DAH with the State of Design Authority's design organization approval, as applicable” in this proposed AD to refer to a DAH authorized to approve certain required repairs for this proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 89 airplanes of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 10 work-hours per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $75,650, or $850 per product.

We have received no definitive data that would enable us to provide a cost estimate for the on-condition actions specified in this proposed AD.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This AD was prompted by a report of inner skin disbonding damage on a rudder. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct rudder disbonding, which could affect the structural integrity of the rudder.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(g) Identification of Part Number

Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, identify the rudder assembly part number (P/N) and serial number (S/N), in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Airbus Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A55W002-12, dated December 13, 2012. If the part number or serial number cannot be determined, before further flight, identify the part number and serial number in accordance with a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or by the Design Approval Holder with EASA design organization approval, as applicable). For an identification method to be approved, the identification method approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(h) Inspections

If a rudder assembly part number starting with A55471500 is found during the inspection required by paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, do an ultrasonic (UT) inspection for damage (e.g., disbonding and liquid ingress) of the rudder side panel along the Z-profile and in the booster area, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A55W002-12, dated December 13, 2012. If any damage is found, before further flight, do the inspections to confirm disbonding damage as specified in paragraph (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, in accordance with Airbus Alert Operator Transmission (AOT) A55W002-12, dated December 13, 2012.

(1) Do an elasticity of laminate checker inspection to detect external and internal disbonding of the rudder side panel along the Z-profile and in the booster area.

(2) Do a woodpecker or tap test inspection to detect external disbonding of the rudder side panel along the Z-profile and in the booster area.

(i) Repair

(1) If any disbonding is confirmed during any inspection required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD, before further flight, repair as specified in paragraphs (i)(1)(i) and (i)(1)(ii) of this AD, as applicable.

(i) If disbonding is less than or equal to 50 millimeters (mm) in width and less than or equal to 150 mm in length, before further flight, vent the core, using a method approved by either the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or by the Design Approval Holder with EASA design organization approval, as applicable). Within 100 flight cycles after the UT inspection specified in paragraph (h) of this AD is done, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with EASA's design organization approval, as applicable). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(ii) If disbonding is greater than 50 mm in width or greater than 150 mm in length, before further flight, repair using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with EASA's design organization approval, as applicable). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(2) If liquid ingress is confirmed during any inspection required by paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2), before further flight, repair, using a method approved by the Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or EASA (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with EASA's design organization approval, as applicable). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD.

(j) Inspection After Re-installation

If any rudder has been inspected as specified in Airbus Service Bulletin A300-55-6043, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2007; or A310-55-2044, Revision 01, dated December 3, 2007; as applicable; and has been removed and re-installed on any airplane after this inspection, that rudder must be re-inspected as required by paragraph (g) of this AD; and all applicable actions required by paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD must be done.

(k) Parts Installation Limitation

As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a rudder assembly having a part number starting with A55471500, unless it has been inspected as required by paragraph (h) of this AD, and all applicable actions required by paragraph (i) of this AD have been done.

(l) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they are FAA approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent, or the Design Approval Holder with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval, as applicable). You are required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(m) Related Information

(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) EASA Airworthiness Directive 2013-0039, dated February 26, 2013; for related information, which can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an analysis of the impacts of extended service goal activities on Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. This proposed AD would require revising the maintenance program. We are proposing this AD to prevent failure of flight critical systems.

You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-0124; or in person at the Docket Management Facility office between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone (800) 647-5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2014-0124; Directorate Identifier 2012-NM-197-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD based on those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA Airworthiness Directive 2012-0233, dated November 7, 2012 (referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

These ALI are not fully new, since all nine tasks derive from existing Maintenance Planning Document (MPD) tasks. Consequently, the intervals of those nine tasks can no longer be escalated or retained at an interval higher than that specified in this [EASA] AD for each task.

Failure to comply with these tasks within the established maximum intervals could be detrimental to the safety of the affected aeroplanes.

For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires the implementation of nine specific operational ALI test for aeroplanes which have accumulated or exceeded 60,000 FH.

In addition, Airbus performed an analysis of the impacts of ESG activities on A300 series aeroplanes and, based on the results, this [EASA] AD publishes an operational life of 75,000 FH or 48,000 FC, whichever occurs first, applicable to A300 system installations.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0124.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This Proposed AD

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, we have been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all pertinent information and determined an unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.

Costs of Compliance

We estimate that this proposed AD affects 7 airplanes of U.S. registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $0 per product. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of this proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $595, or $85 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);

3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and

4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

This AD was prompted by an analysis of the impacts of extended service goal activities on Airbus Model A300 series airplanes. We are issuing this AD to prevent failure of flight critical systems.

(f) Compliance

Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.

(g) Maintenance/Inspection Program Revision

Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate the information specified in Table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD. The compliance time for doing the initial actions specified in Table 1 to paragraph (g) of this AD is before 60,000 total flight hours accumulated on the airplane, or within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs later.

As of the effective date of this AD, do not operate any airplane beyond 75,000 total flight hours or 48,000 total flight cycles, whichever occurs first.

(i) No Alternative Actions and Intervals

After accomplishing the revision required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions (e.g., inspections) or intervals may be used unless the actions or intervals are approved as an alternative method of compliance in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.

(j) Other FAA AD Provisions

The following provisions also apply to this AD:

(1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA 98057-3356; telephone (425) 227-2125; fax (425) 227-1149. Information may be emailed to: 9-ANM-116-AMOC-REQUESTS@faa.gov. Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must specifically reference this AD.

(2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they were approved by the State of Design Authority (or its delegated agent, or the DAH with a State of Design Authority's design organization approval). For a repair method to be approved, the repair approval must specifically refer to this AD. You are required to ensure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(k) Related Information

Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) European Aviation Safety Agency Airworthiness Directive 2012-0233, dated November 7, 2012, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2014-0124.

This action proposes to amend Class E airspace at Albion, NE. Decommissioning of the Alaby non-directional radio beacon (NDB) at Albion Municipal Airport has made airspace reconfiguration necessary for standard instrument approach procedures and for the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at the airport.

DATES:

0901 UTC. Comments must be received on or before April 14, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001. You must identify the docket number FAA-2013-0595/Airspace Docket No. 13-ACE-10, at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5527), is on the ground floor of the building at the above address.

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2013-0595/Airspace Docket No. 13-ACE-10.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

Availability of NPRMs

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see “ADDRESSES” section for address and phone number) between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the office of the Central Service Center, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (202) 267-9677, to request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

This action proposes to amend Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), Part 71 by modifying Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Albion Municipal Airport, Albion, NE, for standard instrument approach procedures at the airport. Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Alaby NDB and the cancellation of the NDB approach. The segment southeast of the airport would now be within 2.6 miles each side of the 159° bearing from the airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.

Class E airspace areas are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9X, dated August 7, 2013 and effective September 15, 2013, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document would be published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore, (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend controlled airspace at Albion Municipal Airport, Albion, NE.

Environmental Review

This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:Authority:

That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Albion Municipal Airport, and within 2.6 miles each side of the 159° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles southeast of the airport.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is re-opening the comment period on two releases, Asset-Backed Securities, Securities Act Release No. 33-9117 (Apr. 7, 2010), 75 FR 23328 (the “2010 ABS Proposing Release”) and Re-Proposal of Shelf Eligibility Conditions for Asset-Backed Securities, Securities Act Release No. 33-9244 (July 26, 2011), 76 FR 47948 (the “2011 ABS Re-Proposing Release”). The Commission is re-opening the comment period to permit interested persons to comment on an approach for the dissemination of potentially sensitive asset-level data. This approach is discussed in a staff memorandum included in the public comment file.

DATES:

Comments should be received on or before March 28, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml); or

• Send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number S7-08-10 on the subject line; or

• Use the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov). Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

All submissions should refer to File Number S7-08-10. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed.shtml). Comments are also available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rolaine S. Bancroft, Senior Special Counsel or Robert Errett, Special Counsel, in the Office of Structured Finance at (202) 551-3850, Division of Corporation Finance, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549-3628.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In 2010, the Commission proposed changes to the offering, disclosure, and reporting requirements for asset-backed securities (“ABS”).1 Among other things, the Commission proposed to require that, with some exceptions, prospectuses for public offerings of asset-backed securities and ongoing Exchange Act reports contain specified asset-level information about each of the assets in the pool in a standardized tagged data format. The 2010 ABS Proposing Release was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 3, 2010, and the initial comment period closed on August 2, 2010.

In July 2010, subsequent to the publication of the 2010 ABS Proposing Release, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), which required the Commission to prescribe several ABS-related rules. Some of the mandated rules were reflected in the 2010 ABS Proposing Release, while others were not. After considering the additional Dodd-Frank Act requirements, and considering comments received in connection with the 2010 ABS Proposing Release, the Commission re-proposed portions of the 2010 ABS Proposing Release in July 2011 seeking additional comment on asset-level disclosure provisions, and comment on Section 942(b) of the Dodd-Frank Act, which requires the Commission to adopt regulations to require asset-level information.2 The 2011 ABS Re-Proposing Release was published for comment in the Federal Register on August 5, 2011, and the initial comment period closed on October 4, 2011.

We received comments in response to the proposals and requests for comment recommending that, among other things, because certain potentially sensitive data would form part of the required asset-level disclosures, the asset-level information be provided by means other than public dissemination on EDGAR.3 For example, we received comments suggesting that information that may raise individual privacy concerns could be provided to investors through a limited-access Web site rather than through public dissemination of this information on EDGAR.4

3See letters from Ally Financial Inc. et al dated Aug. 2, 2010 submitted in response to the 2010 ABS Proposing Release, Ally Financial Inc. et al dated Oct. 13, 2011 submitted in response to the 2011 ABS Re-Proposing Release, and Ally Financial Inc. et al dated Aug. 3, 2012 submitted in response to the 2011 ABS Re-Proposing Release (“VABSS IV”) (urging the Commission “to consider whether loan-level data (or even grouped data) needs to be made publicly available or could be made available to investors and other legitimate users in a more limited manner, such as through a limited access Web site”). See also letters from Consumer Data Industry Association dated Aug. 2, 2010 submitted in response to the 2010 ABS Proposing Release (suggesting that the Commission require parties that want to access the data on EDGAR register to use the data, acknowledge the sensitive nature of the data and agree to maintain its confidentiality) and Epicurus Institute dated Aug. 1, 2010 submitted in response to the 2010 ABS Proposing Release (stating that they believe “that the prospectus should contain a hypertext link (with instructions for accessing a Web site to obtain the data) . . . [and only] prospective investors should have traceable access to the data, and that they never have the opportunity to download . . . raw data in any format”).

4See, e.g., letter from VABSS IV.

The staff has prepared a memorandum summarizing additional information about the use of Web sites in the ABS market as a means to disseminate asset-level and other offering information.5 The memorandum describes one potential method to address privacy concerns related to the dissemination of potentially sensitive asset-level data. This method would require issuers to make asset-level information available to investors and potential investors through a Web site that would allow issuers to restrict access to information as necessary to address privacy concerns. The Commission is considering this method and therefore re-opening the comment period to permit interested parties to comment on the staff memorandum, which has been included in the comment file, addressing these issues. The comment period will be re-opened for thirty days to allow comment on all aspects of the approach, including the benefits and costs of and reasonable alternatives to such an approach, for issuers to make asset-level data directly available to investors and potential investors, taking into account the possible sensitive nature of such data.

5See Memorandum from the Commission's Division of Corporation Finance (dated February 25, 2014), which is available on the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-10/s70810.shtml.

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education (Department).

ACTION:

Proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions.

SUMMARY:

The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education proposes priorities, a requirement, and definitions under the IAL program. The Assistant Secretary may use the priorities, requirement, and definitions for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2014 and later years. We take this action to ensure IAL projects will be supported, at a minimum, by evidence of strong theory, and to focus Federal financial assistance on projects that serve rural local educational agencies (LEAs).

DATES:

We must receive your comments on or before March 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site under “Are you new to the site?”

The Department's policy is to make all comments received from members of the public available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly available.

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in developing the notice of final priorities, requirement, and definitions, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed priority, requirement, or definition that each comment addresses.

We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions. Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of the program.

During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public comments about these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments in person in room 3E241 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Washington, DC between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Purpose of Program: The purpose of the IAL program is to support high-quality projects designed to develop and improve literacy skills for children and students from birth through 12th grade within the attendance boundaries of high-need LEAs and schools.

Program Authority:

20 U.S.C. 7243-7243b.

Proposed Priorities:

This notice contains two proposed priorities.

Proposed Priority 1—High-quality plan for innovative approaches to literacy that include book distribution, childhood literacy activities, or both, and that is supported, at a minimum, by evidence of strong theory (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

Background:

We have developed a priority that describes the components of a high-quality plan and the level of evidence of effectiveness most appropriate for the IAL program.

The components of a high-quality plan include a description of how the activity improves literacy in early childhood, improves students' reading ability, motivates older children to read, or teaches children and students to read. The plan must also include a description of the populations to be served, key goals and activities, the rationale for the activities chosen, timeline for the project, parties responsible for implementing the project, and the credibility of the plan.

The Secretary published final regulations in the Federal Register on August 13, 2013 (78 FR 49338), that include a description of four levels of evidence for the Department to use in determining the potential effectiveness of proposed projects.

Considering that the new regulations were established, in part, to provide incentives and opportunities to build the body of evidence of effectiveness in education, and considering the wide range of new and innovative approaches possible under the IAL program, we have determined that the most appropriate level of evidence for the IAL program is strong theory.

While there exists evidence in the field to support a higher level of evidence for the IAL program, we selected strong theory in order to broaden the evidence base by supporting innovative and new ideas, as well as to empower applicants to propose activities and approaches that have shown evidence of promise or effectiveness anecdotally or in theory, but that have not yet been included in a published research study or not met the requirements of a higher level of evidence.

The final regulations also note the importance of applicants proposing project evaluations that increase the level of evidence of the proposed project's effectiveness. In order to provide opportunities for applicants to build the body of evidence of effectiveness in education, we will include a related selection criterion that encourages applicants to incorporate evaluation designs that will, if well-implemented, produce evidence of promise for future projects. Evidence of promise is a more rigorous level of evidence than strong theory.

Proposed Priority:

To meet this priority, applicants must submit a plan that is supported by evidence of strong theory, including a rationale for the proposed process, product, strategy, or practice and a corresponding logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

The applicant must submit a plan with the following information:

(a) a description of the proposed book distribution, childhood literacy activities, or both, that are designed to improve the literacy skills of children and students by one or more of the following—

(1) promoting early literacy and preparing young children to read;

(2) developing and improving students' reading ability;

(3) motivating older children to read; and

(4) teaching children and students to read.

(b) the age or grade spans of children and students from birth through 12th grade to be served within the attendance boundaries of high-need LEAs (as defined in this notice);

(c) a detailed description of the key goals, the activities to be undertaken, the rationale for those activities, the timeline, the parties responsible for implementing the activities, and the credibility of the plan (as judged, in part, by the information submitted as evidence of strong theory); and

(d)(i) a description of how the proposed project is supported by strong theory; and (ii) the corresponding logic model (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)).

Proposed Priority 2—Serving Rural LEAs

Background:

Rural school districts often lack the personnel and resources needed to compete effectively for Federal competitive grants. Therefore, we wish to establish a priority to better enable eligible rural applicants to compete effectively for IAL funds.

Proposed Priority:

To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project designed to provide high-quality literacy programming, or distribute books, or both, to students served by a rural LEA (as defined in this notice).

Types of Priorities:

When inviting applications for a competition using one or more priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:

Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).

Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).

Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).

Proposed Requirement:

Background:

The IAL program is guided by the Senate report that accompanied the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (S. Rep. no. 113-71, at 173 (2013)). According to that report, funds made available under the IAL program are for competitive awards to national not-for-profit organizations (NNPs) or school libraries.

School libraries generally do not have the capacity to manage Federal grants independently of the schools and districts they serve. We believe LEAs are better equipped to compete for, and meet the requirements of, Federal grants than are school libraries. Therefore, school libraries should coordinate with their LEAs in competing for IAL funds.

Proposed Requirement:

The Assistant Secretary proposes the following requirement for this program. We may apply this requirement in any year in which this program is in effect.

Eligibility: To be considered for an award under this competition, an applicant must be one of the following: (1) A high-need LEA (as defined in this notice); (2) an NNP (as defined in this notice) that serves children and students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs; (3) a consortium of NNPs that serve children and students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs; (4) a consortium of high-need LEAs; or (5) a consortium of one or more high-need LEAs and one or more NNPs that serve children and students within the attendance boundaries of one or more high-need LEAs.

Proposed Definitions:

Background:

Six important terms associated with this program are not defined in the authorizing statute, applicable regulations, or EDGAR.

Proposed Definitions:

The Assistant Secretary proposes the following definitions for this program. We may apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.

College- and career-ready standards means content standards for kindergarten through 12th grade that build towards college and career readiness by the time of high school graduation. A State's college- and career-ready standards must be either (1) standards that are common to a significant number of States; or (2) standards that are approved by a State network of institutions of higher education, which must certify that students who meet the standards will not need remedial course work at the postsecondary level.

Comprehensive statewide literacy plan means a plan (which may be a component or modification of the plan submitted under the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy formula grant program, CFDA 84.371B) that addresses the literacy and language needs of children from birth through 12th grade, including English Learners and students with disabilities; aligns literacy policies, resources, and practices; contains clear instructional goals; and sets high expectations for all students and student subgroups.

High-need local educational agency (High-need LEA) means an LEA, including a charter school or State-administered school that is considered an LEA under State law, in which at least 25 percent of the students aged 0-17 in the geographic area served by the LEA (or, in the case of a charter school that is an LEA, at least 25 percent of the students enrolled in the school) are from families with incomes below the poverty line based on the most recent satisfactory data available from the U.S. Census Bureau at the time a notice inviting applications is published.

National not-for-profit (NNP) organization means an agency, organization, or institution owned and operated by one or more corporations or associations whose net earnings do not benefit, and cannot lawfully benefit, any private shareholder or entity. In addition, it means, for the purposes of this program, an organization of national scope that is supported by staff or affiliates at the State and local levels, who may include volunteers, and that has a demonstrated history of effectively developing and implementing literacy activities. Note: A local affiliate of an NNP does not meet the definition of NNP. Only a national agency, organization, or institution is eligible to apply as an NNP.

Rural local educational agency (Rural LEA) means an LEA that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement program (SRSA) or the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA at the time of application.

Universal design for learning (UDL) means a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice that (i) provides flexibility in the ways information is presented, in the ways students respond or demonstrate knowledge and skills, and in the ways students are engaged; and (ii) reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are English Learners.

Final Priorities, Requirement, and Definitions:

We will announce the final priorities, requirement, and definitions in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the final priorities, requirement, and definitions after considering responses to this notice and other information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

Note:

This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, requirement, and definitions we invite applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563Regulatory Impact Analysis

Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether this proposed regulatory action is “significant” and, therefore, subject to the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a “significant regulatory action” as an action likely to result in a rule that may—

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to as an “economically significant” rule);

(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive order.

This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.

We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency—

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify);

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into account—among other things and to the extent practicable—the costs of cumulative regulations;

(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);

(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must adopt; and

(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including economic incentives—such as user fees or marketable permits—to encourage the desired behavior, or provide information that enables the public to make choices.

Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency “to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible.” The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these techniques may include “identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.”

We are issuing these proposed priorities, requirement, and definitions only on a reasoned determination that their benefits would justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 13563.

We also have determined that this regulatory action would not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.

In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.

This document provides early notification of our specific plans and actions for this program.

Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access documents of the Department published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published by the Department.

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks comment on a number of discrete issues relating to the rural broadband experiments and on the appropriate budget and funding to support initiatives for the ongoing need for research into the future of telephone numbering. The purpose of these experiments is to speed market-driven technological transitions and innovations by preserving the core statutory vales that exist today.

DATES:

Comments are due on or before March 31, 2014 and reply comments are due on or before April 14, 2014. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this document, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by either WC Docket No. 10-90 or WC Docket No. 13-97, by any of the following methods:

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Further Notice of Proposed Rulemakings (FNPRM's) in WC Docket Nos. 10-90; 13-97 FCC 14-5, adopted on January 30, 2014 and released on January 31, 2014. The full text of this document is available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. Or at the following Internet address: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-5A1.pdf.

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.

Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.

Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.

Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.

People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).

I. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WC Docket No. 10-90)

1. In the Technology Transitions Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Order), adopted concurrently with these FNPRM's, the Commission kick started the process for a diverse set of experiments and data collection initiatives that will allow the Commission and the public to evaluate how customers are affected by the historic technology transitions that are transforming our nation's voice communications services—from a network based on time-division multiplexed (TDM) circuit-switched voice services running on copper loops to an all-Internet Protocol (IP) network using copper, co-axial cable, wireless, and fiber as physical infrastructure. In this FNPRM, the Commission seeks comment on a number of discrete issues relating to rural broadband experiments. The final rules that were adopted concurrently with these FNPRM's are published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.

A. Budget for Rural Broadband Experiments

2. The Commission intends to provide funding for experiments to extend modern networks in rural, high-cost areas without increasing the overall size of the universal service fund. The USF/ICC Transformation Order, 76 FR 73830, November 29, 2011, directed Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to collect $4.5 billion annually for the Connect America Fund, and, to the extent disbursements in a given year are less than collections, deposit the excess in a broadband reserve account. Because annual disbursements have been less than $4.5 billion to date, and funds have accumulated in the reserve account, a limited amount of funding could be awarded for experiments in 2014 from the reserve account without exceeding the overall $4.5 billion annual budget for the Connect America Fund. The Commission proposes that a limited amount of these unallocated funds be made available for experiments in any part of the country, whether served by an incumbent price cap carrier or rate-of-return carrier. Utilizing these unallocated funds for rural experiments could serve multiple objectives: First, it would enable us to better design the final competitive bidding process that will be used nationwide to award support in price cap territories to the extent the price cap carrier declines to make a state-level commitment; second, it would enable the Commission to provide funding for technology experiments across the country (not limited to areas where the incumbent provider is a price cap carrier), which will help inform future decisions regarding implementation of the Connect America Fund in areas where the incumbent is a rate-of-return carrier; and third, it would help the Commission identify ways to use the various universal service programs together to attack in a coordinated fashion the challenges of universal access in rural America. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

3. According to USAC, the Connect America reserve account is projected to have an ending balance of $1.68 billion as of the first quarter of 2014, with $1.45 billion of those funds already allocated to Connect America Phase I (incremental support in round one and round two), the Mobility Fund Phase I, the Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I, and the Mobility Fund Phase II. The Commission does not envision using all unallocated funds in the broadband reserve for experiments in rural areas, but rather an amount that is sufficient to enable us to award funding to a limited number of projects that enable evaluation of the four sets of interrelated questions identified above. Should the Commission make available $50 or $100 million or some other amount in total support for experiments? Should the Commission allocate a lesser or greater amount? Should the Commission specifically allocate a separate amount for non-recurring support to be awarded on a competitive basis, in addition to recurring support, or merely a total amount that can used in a variety of ways, depending on the applications received? Should the Commission allocate a portion of the funds for Phase II experiments in price cap areas, and a separate amount for areas outside of price cap territories?

B. Experiments in Areas Where the Incumbent Is a Rate-of-Return Carrier

4. In the Order, the Commission concluded that it should entertain proposals to extend next generation networks in areas where the incumbent provider is a rate-of-return carrier. The Commission did so with the intention to use experiments as a vehicle to consider how it might develop a longer term Connect America mechanism that would be appropriately designed to ensure that consumers, businesses, and anchor institutions in rate-of-return areas have access to innovative services delivered over high-capacity networks.

5. The Commission remains firmly committed to the goal of ensuring that universal service support is utilized efficiently to preserve voice and extend broadband-capable networks in high-cost areas in rural America. As discussed in the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission has taken steps to reform the universal service mechanisms that support rate-of-return carriers “to address the misaligned incentives” of the previous regime “by correcting program design flaws, extending successful safeguards, ensuring basic fiscal responsibility, and closing loopholes to ensure our rules reward only prudent and efficient investment in modern networks.” While the Commission continues to evaluate various proposals in the docket, the Commission intends for rural broadband experiments in rate-of-return areas to provide us with valuable data that will help ensure that funds are disbursed efficiently and in the public interest in areas served by incumbent rate-of-return carriers.

6. The Commission proposes generally to apply the same application process and procedures adopted in the Order for the Connect America Phase II experiment to the experiments in rate-of-return areas, recognizing that it may be appropriate to adopt an implementation schedule different than that used in price cap territories. In particular, the Commission proposes to use a two-stage application process for applications from entities wishing to participate in experiments to extend next generation networks in areas where the incumbent is a rate-of-return carrier. NTCA suggests that the Commission should provide incumbent rate-of-return carriers an initial window to submit applications for the experiment, in advance of soliciting applications from other parties, and also should allow the rate-of-return carrier to undertake the same deployment proposed by a non-incumbent for the same or a lesser amount of support. The Commission seeks comment on these proposals. If the Commission was to adopt such a framework, how much time should be provided for the incumbent to indicate that it is willing to deploy broadband to the same geographic area for the same or a lesser amount of support as proposed by a non-incumbent applicant? Should the Commission provide an opportunity, in turn, for the original applicant (the non-incumbent) to modify its proposal? Would the additional time and complexity of implementing such a process to make final and best offers be unwieldy in what is intended to be a short-term experiment in 2014?

7. Consistent with the approach adopted for experiments in price cap territories and previously implemented by the Commission for the second round of Connect America Phase I, the Commission proposes that experimental funding would only be made only for locations in high-cost census blocks lacking broadband, subject to a challenge process. The Commission does not intend such experiments to threaten the financial viability of broadband networks that exist today through support from our existing high-cost mechanisms. Without prejudging where the funding threshold will ultimately be set for purposes of the offer of model-based support to price cap carriers, we encourage entities interested in proposing experiments in rate-of-return areas to focus their proposals on high-cost areas similar to those identified in the cost model as potentially eligible for the Phase II offer of model-based support to price cap carriers. The Commission recognizes that representatives of rate-of-return carriers have argued that adjustments would need to be made to the cost model before it could be used on a voluntary basis for any rate-of-return carrier that wished to elect to receive model-based support. Without prejudging the resolution of that question, could the model nonetheless be employed to identify potential areas where experiments in rate-of-return areas might be useful?

8. The Commission proposes to allow proposals in areas where the incumbent is a rate-of-return carrier to be made at the census block level in lieu of the census tract level in recognition that smaller providers may wish to develop proposals for smaller geographic areas.

9. The Commission seeks comment on all of these proposals. To the extent parties argue, the Commission should take a different approach in rate-of-return areas, they should identify with specificity what aspects of the experiments adopted for price cap areas should be modified and why.

C. Selective Criteria for Rural Broadband Experiments

10. A key objective in conducting these experiments is to determine whether there is interest in deploying robust, scalable networks for an amount equal to or less than model-based support. Here, the Commission seeks comment on the selective criteria for those experiments.

11. The Commission seeks comment below on potential selective factors and ask commenters to address how the Commission might implement these selective factors as part of its objective process for selecting experiments. For example, should the Commission adopt a 100 point scale? The Commission also seeks comment more generally on whether any selective factors should be added, deleted or modified.

12. The Commission proposes that cost effectiveness should be the primary criteria in evaluating which applications to select for the experiment. How should the Commission measure cost effectiveness? One potential measure of cost effectiveness is whether the applicant proposes to serve an area for an amount less than model-based support. Are there other objective measures for cost-effectiveness that the Commission should test in the experimental setting? If the Commission were to adopt such a selective factor and a scoring system, how many points should be provided to applicants based on the cost effectiveness of their proposal? To the extent an applicant seeks one-time funding as opposed to recurring support, how should that be evaluated in the scoring system, as support amounts determined in the forward looking cost model are recurring amounts?

13. A second potential selective criteria is the extent to which the applicant proposes to build robust, scalable networks. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission indicated it would initiate a proceeding in 2014 to review the performance requirements in order to ensure that Connect America continues to support broadband that is reasonably comparable to broadband services in urban areas. The Commission hopes to gather valuable data in the rural broadband experiments regarding the extent of interest among stakeholders in building robust, scalable networks that will meet Commission goals for an evolving level of universal service. The Commission adopted an “initial minimum speed benchmark” for recipients of Connect America of 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream, but it also specified that some number of locations would receive at least 6 Mbps downstream and at least 1.5 Mbps upstream by the end of the five-year term of Phase II. If the Commission were to adopt such a selective criteria, how much weight should be given to applicants that propose to offer services more robust than what the Commission established for price cap carriers accepting model-based support? Should the Commission assign varying weights based on the percentage of locations in the proposed project areas that would receive services of varying speeds? Should the Commission also assign additional weight for applicants that propose to offer service with unlimited usage or usage allowances significantly higher than established for the price cap carriers that accept model-based support? Should additional weight be assigned to applicants that commit to offering at least 100 Mbps service to schools with 1,000 students or more, with the ability to scale that to 1 gigabit service within several years, and comparable services to libraries?

14. A third potential criteria could be the extent to which applicants propose innovative strategies to leverage non-Federal governmental sources of funding, such as State, local, or Tribal government funding. The Commission recognizes the importance of a State, local or Tribal government commitment to advance universal service in partnership with the Commission. If the Commission were to adopt this criteria, how much weight should be given to applications that leverage non-Federal governmental funding sources?

15. A fourth potential criteria could be whether applicants propose to offer high-capacity connectivity to Tribal lands. If the Commission were to adopt this criteria, how much weight should be given to applications that propose to serve Tribal lands?

16. Finally, the Commission seeks more specific comment on how the mechanics of the scoring system would function. What role, if any, should there be for more subjective evaluations of the financial and technical qualifications of applicants, or of which proposals provide the best value for requested funding? For instance, should there be flexibility to deviate from the scoring system in order to achieve diversity of projects, both in terms of geography and types of technologies?

17. Relatedly, the Commission seeks comment on what information may be useful to include in the formal proposals for rural broadband experiments, such as: The number of proposed residential and small business locations to be served within eligible census blocks in the relevant census tract; the number of health care providers, schools and libraries that are physically located within the eligible census blocks; whether the proposal includes the provision of service on Tribal lands and, if so, identification of the Tribal lands to be served; the planned service offerings that would be offered to residential and small businesses, and such anchor institutions, with details regarding the proposed speeds, latencies, usage allowance (if any), and pricing of such offerings; whether the services offered to residential consumers would be sufficiently robust to utilize advanced educational and health care applications; when such services would be available to consumers, businesses and such anchor institutions (the planned deployment schedule); whether the infrastructure can be upgraded later to offer greater throughput (i.e., speeds) and more capacity for each user at a given price point; how network speeds and other characteristics can be measured; whether any discounted services would be offered to specific populations, such as low-income households or customers on Tribal lands; proposed strategies for demand aggregation; proposed strategies for addressing barriers to adoption (e.g., whether the applicant proposes to offer digital literacy training or equipment to subscribers); whether and how other service providers can use the facilities constructed; availability and cost of backhaul and other assets required for project success; whether constraints in middle-mile connectivity may limit the services offered; whether the applicant plans to rely in part on financing from non-federal governmental institutions (e.g., State, regional, Tribal, or local funding; State universal service fund; private foundations); whether the applicant expects to have access to resources that will contribute to project success, such as in-kind contributions, access to cell towers, poles and rights of way, expedited permitting, or existing authorizations; information regarding the proposed network to be deployed and the technologies to be utilized (e.g., wireline, fixed wireless, or mobile wireless); how the applicant proposes to offer voice telephony service to customers at rates reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas; and the amount of Connect America support requested (total and per location) and the time period over which funding would be provided.

D. Additional Considerations for Rural Broadband Experiments

18. In the Order, the Commission makes clear that the experiments will focus on areas where end users lack Internet access that delivers 3 Mbps downstream/768 kbps Mbps upstream. Here, the Commission seeks comment on specific measures to implement that objective. What specific numerical measure should be used to determine whether the extent of competitive overlap is de minimis? The Commission recognizes that unserved locations will not neatly align with census block or census tract boundaries. What measures should the Commission take to ensure that federal funds are focused on bringing next generation networks to the unserved?

19. The Commission expects that the amount of funding to be made available for any experiment will not exceed the amount of model-calculated support for a given geographic area. The Commission seeks comment on whether to limit the amount of support available in census tracts where the average cost per location is higher than the preliminary extremely high cost threshold to the amount per location equal to that preliminary extremely high cost threshold.

20. The Commission seeks comment on allowing applicants for funding awarded through this rural broadband experiment to propose to serve partially-served census blocks, which are not eligible for the offer of model-based support to price cap carriers. In adopting a framework for the Phase II challenge process, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) concluded, primarily for administrative reasons, that partially served blocks would not be included in the offer of model-based support, reasoning that the administrative burdens on both Commission staff and potential challenges of conducting sub-census block challenges outweighed the marginal benefits. That was a reasonable approach for determining whether the incumbent would receive the opportunity to receive model-based support in exchange for a state-level commitment, given the assumption that areas not served by price cap carriers through the offer of model-based support potentially could be eligible for support through the Phase II competitive bidding process. The Commission believes it could be valuable to examine on a limited scale, in the Phase II experiment, whether the administrative difficulties of entertaining challenges to the eligibility of partially served census blocks could be mitigated by doing such challenges only if a partially served census block is tentatively awarded funding (rather than in advance of selection). Such an approach could advance the Commission's goal of ensuring that all consumers, businesses and anchor institutions—including those that currently lack service in these partially served census blocks—will have an opportunity to gain broadband access in the future.

21. The Commission seeks comment on any additional rules or requirements it should adopt in the context of rural broadband experiments. For instance, should a condition of participation be offering discounted broadband services to low-income consumers? For applicants whose service areas include Tribal lands, should a condition of participation be offering service to residents and anchor institutions on Tribal lands? Should a condition of participation be to offer to connect community-based institutions, such as schools, libraries, and health care providers, within the project area with high-capacity services appropriate for educational or healthcare activities? To the extent an applicant fails to meet the conditions of its experiment, should facilities built using universal service funding be made available to others? The Commission asks commenters to refresh the record on issues relating to the Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETC) designation process. Should the Commission adopt federal rules regarding the ETC designation process specifically for the rural broadband experiments? For instance, should the Commission adopt a presumption that if a State fails to act on an ETC application from a selected participant within a specified period of time, such as 60 days, the State lacks jurisdiction over the applicant, and the Commission will address the ETC application pursuant to section 214(e)(6)? The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how the competitive bidding requirements and other rules applicable to participants and vendors in other universal service programs should apply in the context of these experiments, to the extent an applicant seeks to offer services to schools, libraries, and/or health care providers, as well as to residential end users. Are there other issues discussed above in the service experiments section that should be addressed in the context of these experiments in rural, high-cost areas, and if so, how?

22. To the extent Connect America Phase II funding is awarded in the experiment prior to the offer of model-based support to price cap carriers, should the Commission direct the Bureau to adjust the offer of support for a state-level commitment to remove those areas from the offer? In such situations, should the incumbent price cap carrier be relieved of its federal ETC high-cost obligations for the area when support is awarded to another entity? The Commission notes that the carrier would still be required to comply with current notice requirements, including notice of discontinuance and notice of network change requirements. Similarly, should areas served by experiments be excluded from the Phase II competitive bidding process? How does the potential difference in duration, or other aspects, of proposals selected for the experiment impact any decision to exclude such areas from the general Phase II competitive bidding process?

E. Rural Healthcare Broadband Experiments

23. In this section, the Commission seeks comment on soliciting experiments that focus on ensuring that consumers have access to advanced services to address the increased and growing demand for telemedicine and remote monitoring. The Commission has a role in ensuring universal access to advanced telecommunications and information services. Historically, the Commission's high-cost program has focused on providing support to providers for the cost of deploying and operating networks in high-cost areas. In the Order, the Commission invites experiments that would explore how to achieve the goals and requirements adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order to use the Connect America Fund to tackle the challenges of universal access in rural areas. Here, the Commission seeks comment more broadly on consumer-oriented rural broadband experiments that would improve patient access to health care.

24. When the Commission adopted the Healthcare Connect Fund in 2012, it sought to advance several goals for the rural healthcare program: (1) Increasing access to broadband for health care providers (HCPs), particularly those serving rural areas; (2) fostering the development and deployment of broadband health care networks, and (3) maximizing the cost-effectiveness of the program. It also set aside up to $50 million to conduct a pilot program to test expanded access to telemedicine at skilled nursing facilities. The Commission seeks comment on experiments that focus on the implications of the technology transition on health care facilities and their patients. The Commission seeks comment on conducting experiments that would explore how to improve access to advanced telecommunications and information services for healthcare for vulnerable populations such as the elderly and veterans in rural, high-cost, and insular areas. For example, technological advances hold great promise to enable the elderly to age in place, in their home, with remote monitoring of key health statistics through a broadband-enabled device. Likewise, the Department of Veteran Affairs has implemented a telehealth initiative which has reduced the number of days spent in the hospital by 59 percent, and hospital admissions by 35 percent for veterans across the country, saving over $2000 per year per patient, including even when factoring in the costs of the program. These programs are critical to achieving savings in healthcare costs, and reducing the amount of time patients are away from home, but a critical gap remains in ensuring that patients, such as the elderly and veterans, have access to sufficient connectivity at home to transmit the necessary data for telemedicine applications such as remote health care monitoring, to enable patients to access the health care provider's patient portal, and for other broadband-enabled health care applications.

25. Consistent with the decision in the USF/ICC Transformation Order to connect all areas, including homes, businesses and anchor institutions—which the Commission defined as schools, libraries, medical and healthcare providers, public safety entities, community colleges and other institutions of higher education, and other community support organizations and agencies that provide outreach, access, equipment, and support services to facilitate greater use of broadband service by vulnerable populations, including low-income, the unemployed, and the aged—the Commission seeks comment on conducting an experiment to support broadband connections to the consumer for discrete rural populations, such as the elderly or veterans, to enable their participation in telehealth initiatives. One example would be a project that seeks to explore how the Connect America Fund can be targeted to work with other federal initiatives to serve the needs of particular populations, such as ensuring adequate health care for veterans in rural America. Another example would be a project that seeks to explore how to use the Connect America Fund to extend broadband to surrounding rural communities that lack residential broadband service.

26. The Commission seeks comment on the amount of funding it should allocate for such experiments. If the Commission moves forward with rural healthcare broadband experiments, it proposes to do so in a manner that would not impact the size of the Fund. Specifically, the Commission proposes funding any such experiments out of the $50 million currently authorized for the skilled nursing facility pilot program. The Commission has previously decided to set aside that amount of one-time support for testing broadband use in telemedicine. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and other options that would not impact the size of the Fund, such as funding coming from the existing Connect America Fund budget or the rural health care mechanism.

27. The Commission proposes generally to use the application process described above for the Connect America rural broadband experiments for any healthcare experiments. To the extent parties suggest the Commission use different processes for a healthcare experiment, they should identify with specificity which aspects of the process should be modified and why.

28. The Commission seeks comment on the specific selective criteria for a healthcare broadband experiment. How many projects should be funded, and how should applications be prioritized? What auditing and recordkeeping measures should be in place for any such experiment to protect against waste, fraud and abuse? Are there specific ways in which the Commission's experience with the successful Rural Health Care Pilot Program or other universal service pilot programs which should be reflected in the evaluation of proposals or the operation of the experiments? Are there requirements under the existing rural health care mechanism (either the Telecommunications Program or the new Healthcare Connect Fund), or other universal service programs, that would be implicated by such experiments? If so, commenters should identify those rules with specificity and indicate how experiments would need to be tailored to such rules, or explain whether and how those rules should be waived or modified.

29. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on how these experiments might be implemented consistent with our legal authority. Following the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Commission implemented the directives in section 254 by adopting rules to administer universal service through four separate programs, but nothing in the statutory framework requires this result. Sections 254(b)(2) and 254(b)(3) require the Commission to “base policies on the preservation and advancement of universal service” on “principles” that “[a]ccess to advanced telecommunications and information services should be provided in all regions of the Nation” and that “[c]onsumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas should have access to . . . advanced telecommunications and information services . . . that are reasonably comparable to services provided in urban areas.” Section 254(h)(1) contains specific provisions for “health care providers in rural areas” and section 254(h)(2) requires the Commission “to establish competitively neutral rules to enhance . . . access to advanced telecommunications services and information services for all . . . health care providers.” The Commission seeks comment on the Commission's legal authority to interpret section 254 to fund experiments that focus on providing advanced telecommunications and information services to consumers in rural areas, with a particular focus deploying broadband that is sufficient to meet consumers' healthcare needs. The Commission also seeks comment on experiments that would provide support to health care providers.

II. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Regarding Numbering Research (WC Docket No. 13-97)A. Research and Development of a Numbering Testbed

30. In the Order, the Commission delegates to the Chief Technology Officer (CTO) (or, in the absence of a CTO, the Chief of the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), or the OET Chief's designee) in consultation with the Chiefs of the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), OET and Office of Strategic Planning & Policy Analysis (OSP), the authority to facilitate the development of a telephony numbering testbed for collaborative, multi-stakeholder research and exploration of technical options and opportunities for telephone numbering in an all-IP network. The numbering testbed is intended to be a proof of concept. Developing ideas in a testbed avoids disrupting current systems and would allow interested parties to work through technical feasibility constraints to allow for the broadest range of policy options and outcomes. The testbed could facilitate the development of a future telephone numbering system by exploring what options are feasible without undue encumbrance by legacy notions and systems. Informed by the research, the Commission would be in a better position to consider what steps may be necessary to facilitate the technology transitions and make informed decisions toward the creation of a next generation, efficient, secure and flexible number management system, while maintaining backward compatibility to the extent possible.

31. In the Order, the Commission sets out its intent to facilitate cooperative research and development into a numbering testbed that builds upon the work of multiple technical bodies and experts to explore issues of number management in a post-transition world. The Commission describes the general purposes of a numbering testbed and direct the CTO to host an initial workshop, open to all technical experts, at which outside experts, advisory groups, standards organizations and other stakeholders who wish to participate can work collaboratively to design and launch a numbering testbed. The Commission also seeks comment in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking below on the funding and budget for the testbed and other numbering research initiatives.

32. Much work has already been done by the Commission and multiple expert bodies to identify issues and concerns with regards to the future of telephone numbering. The Commission would expect that any testbed launched after the initial workshop would build upon these efforts.

33. In response to the May 10, 2013 Public Notice seeking comment on potential trials to explore technology transitions issues, the Commission received several comments concerning numbering. Numerous parties noted the need for numbering research, testing and trials. Commenters stated that a trial is needed to explore the changing role of the databases in an all-IP network, and recommended that any trial should be open to carriers, Voice over IP (VoIP) providers, database administrators, and others with an interest in numbering. In Charge Systems noted the need to identify and validate customers and telephone numbers. Neustar noted the decoupling of geography from telephone number assignments as well as the potential elimination of telephone number allocation on a rate center basis. NARUC commented on the need to consider numbering resource utilization and optimization.

34. Building upon the work and recommendations of these expert bodies, the Commission directs that it work collaboratively with government and non-government experts towards basic research into the design and development of a prototype post-transition number management system as described below. The Commission believes that the Commission, in cooperation with other experts, can play an important, beneficial and industry-neutral role in accelerating the development of this pre-market, non-production system.

1. Developing the Testbed

35. The testbed goals would be to enable research into numbering in an all-IP network, unencumbered by the constraints of the legacy network. Such a testbed might address number allocation and management as well as database lookup for call routing. The effort could include two facets: (i) A small, non-production server system for prototyping, and (ii) one or more workshops or electronic fora to convene an open, cross-industry, and collaborative group of technical experts, including, in particular, software engineers with implementation experience, to sketch and prototype a system for managing numbering resources and obtaining information about these resources. Any testbed should be designed to result in experiences and output that will inform the work of relevant industry standards bodies, Commission advisory bodies and the Commission, using the Internet principles of “rough consensus and running code.”

36. The Testbed. As a small, non-production server system, the testbed itself would be an engineering sandbox designed by technical experts in which to explore the future of numbering in a pre-standards, non-operational, and non-production environment. The Commission anticipates that the testbed numbering system would use common industry approaches, such as HTTP XML or RESTful APIs and JSON, supporting operations such as allocating a number “just in time” or in a block from the available pools of numbers; track to whom the number has been allocated (either a traditional carrier, a VoIP provider or, for 800 numbers, a Responsible Organization (the entity chosen by a toll-free subscriber to manage and administer the appropriate records in the toll free Service Management System for the toll free subscriber) or end user); create credentials for end users and carriers that allow them to assert that they have been issued such a number; rapidly port with validation, including new mechanisms similar to domain names that provide users with secure porting keys for their numbers to greatly reduce erroneous and malicious ports (and the related slamming); associate validated number user information to prevent spoofing; provide information to carriers and providers on how to interconnect to the number; facilitate VoIP interconnection; and promote efficient number utilization including enabling authorized parties to collect information about number usage and assignment, e.g., to effectively prevent number hoarding or inefficient utilization.

37. The Commission further expects that the testbed would include features such as security (including the ability to mitigate spoofing, phishing, unwanted calls, and denial-of-service attacks), the ability to authenticate numbers, traceability, efficiency, portability, and reliability. Any testbed should be designed to promote competition and create predictable dialing protocols for end users. A properly designed testbed should also take into account the needs of emergency communications and N11 dialing for special services, as well as any potential implications for persons with disabilities. International implications should be explored as well as the impact of the IPv6 migration.

38. To be most useful to the Commission, the testbed should permit exploration of what is feasible for an all-IP, post-transitions number system, identify issues, and flag what actions may be necessary in order to facilitate the technology transitions. Questions that could be explored include those noted above as well as: how can the number system be simplified? Can multiple databases exist and can they be distributed? What are the implications of decoupling numbering from geography or services? How can the Commission measure actual number utilization and prevent the inefficient use of numbering resources? What interfaces must be specified? What databases are necessary? How will routing be handled and what information is necessary within the database? What are the implications for number utilization, particularly in light of machine-to-machine communications? Who can a number be assigned to, how can that person be authenticated, and what information about that person needs to be in the database?

39. While the Commission does not anticipate needing a block of NANP numbers to initiate the test bed, would the availability of a block of numbers facilitate the goals of this test bed? If so, can the block be drawn from existing resources such as pANI or the 555 NXX or 456 NPA (carrier-specific services) blocks or should they be drawn from other numbering resources? How large a resource allocation is needed and are there Commission actions that need to be taken to facilitate allocation?

40. Workshop(s). The Commission expects to convene one or more workshops to facilitate the design and development of the testbed. These workshops are intended to be engineering working sessions, modeled after `hackathons' in which groups of technical experts collaborate intensively to work through technical challenges and create prototype systems. Participation is open to any and all technical experts. The Commission particularly welcomes software engineers with experience implementing telephony-related systems.

41. The initial workshop will be hosted by the CTO and will focus on the basic design and launch of the testbed as a non-production, prototype system for managing numbering resources and obtaining information about these resources in a post-transitions world. The workshop has three objectives: (1) To identify the gaps in the existing system for an all-IP environment and opportunities for simplification; (2) to facilitate proposals for a general architecture for the testbed; and (3) to facilitate the infrastructure and organization (mailing list, conference calls) for those individuals that are interested in doing the prototyping and participating further in the testbed process. Subsequent engineering workshops will continue, as needed, to assist participants in refining the testbed and in further exploring the many technical questions raised by an all-IP, post transitions numbering management system.

2. Process and Timeline

42. The Commission expects the testbed to run for about a year. The Commission anticipates that the testbed would be hosted at a neutral but as of yet undetermined location. The Commission anticipates that maintaining the physical testbed will involve a modest expense of a few thousand dollars per year. For further information concerning the testbed and the workshop, please contact Robert Cannon, Robert.Cannon@fcc.gov, (202) 418-2421.

3. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

43. As indicated by experts and commenters, there is an ongoing need for research into the future of telephone numbering. The Commission proposes funding telephone numbering research to support initiatives like the testbed, and it seeks comment on the appropriate budget and funding. For example, the Commission expects funding to maintain the testbed to be quite modest (approximately $100 per month for server resources), which could potentially be obtained from a number of sources, but technical staff resources may accelerate progress. The Commission requires the collection of numbering contributions associated with telephone numbering management that are used to fund the operation of numbering databases and services. Should the Commission use some of the revenue collected from these contributions to fund the testbed and related research? How would funding for such research be determined? What types of awards would be appropriate? Should the Commission seek NANC input on what research needs to be conducted? If so, what timeframe would be appropriate for obtaining input from the NANC? The Commission seeks comment on these issues. The Commission also seeks comment on how it can best identify any further research that should be facilitated by the Commission to supplement the work of stakeholders participating in any testbed and under what timeframe that research should be performed. Should the Commission solicit other numbering-related research proposals? If so, what kind of research would be most helpful and how should the Commission facilitate such research?

44. The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

2. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

45. The USF/ICC Transformation Order and FNPRM, 76 FR 78384, December 16, 2011, included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential impact on small entities of the Commission's proposal. The Commission invites parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of this additional notice.

3. Ex Parte Presentations

46. The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

4. Filing Instructions

47. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the Dates section of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.

48. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that agencies prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” The RFA generally defines “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (1) Is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

49. In this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission states that there is an ongoing need for research into the future of telephone numbering, proposes funding telephone numbering research to support initiatives like the testbed described in the Order in WC Docket No. 13-97 described above, and seeks comment on the appropriate budget and funding. The Commission notes that it expects the funding to maintain the testbed to be quite modest (approximately $100 per month) for server resources, that it could potentially be funded by contributions already collected in association with telephone numbering management, and seeks comment on this. The Commission seeks comment on how funding for such research should be determined, the types of awards that would be appropriate, whether the Commission should seek NANC input on what research needs to be conducted, and the timeframe for any such input from NANC. This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking only seeks comment on funding and budget for research and development projects and does not propose new rules, burdens, or requirements.

50. The Commission therefore certifies, pursuant to the RFA, that the proposals in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. If commenters believe that the proposals discussed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking require additional RFA analysis, they should include a discussion of these issues in their comments and additionally label them as RFA comments. The Commission will send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including a copy of this initial regulatory flexibility certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. In addition, a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and this initial certification will be published in the Federal Register.

2. Ex Parte Presentations

51. The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with § 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by § 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

3. Filing Instructions

52. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the Dates section of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998.

For further information, contact Robert Cannon, Senior Counsel, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, at Robert.Cannon@fcc.gov, or at (202) 418-2421.

54. It is further ordered that pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 10-90 or WC Docket No. 13-97 on or before March 31, 2014 and reply comments on or before April 14, 2014.

55. It is further ordered, that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 10-90, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

B. Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 13-97

56. It is further ordered that pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 201, 251, and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201, 251, 303(r), and section 1.1 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.1, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 13-97 is hereby adopted.

DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to update the Rules of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA). The proposed rule revises and reorders the Board's Rules for clarity and consistency and accounts for changes in technology, provides updated contact information, and adds two addendums.

DATES:

Comment date: Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the addresses shown below on or before April 29, 2014, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments identified by Docket No. DARS 2014-0011, using any of the following methods:

Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

This proposed rule is being issued on behalf of Judge Paul Williams, Chairman, Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals. The rule proposes to amend the DFARS to update the Rules of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals at 48 CFR Chapter 2, Appendix A, Part 2. It revises and reorders the Board's Rules for clarity and consistency and accounts for changes in technology, removes contradictions, resolves ambiguities, provides updated contact information to allow for some electronic communication by litigants appearing before the Board, and adds two addendums: Equal Access to Justice Act Procedures and Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution, previously not formally contained in the Rules.

II. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

III. Regulatory Flexibility Act

DoD does not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule revises the Rules of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals to improve clarity and to remove ambiguities and contradictions. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has not been performed. DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities. DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C 610 (Rules of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals), in correspondence.

IV. Paperwork Reduction Act

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

CHAPTER 2—DEFENSE ACQUISITION REGULATIONS SYSTEM, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE2. Appendix A to Chapter 2 is amended by revising Part 2—Rules to read as follows:Appendix A to Chapter 2—Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals Armed Services Board of Contract AppealsPart 2—RulesApproved 15 July 1963Revised 1 May 1969Revised 1 September 1973Revised 30 June 1980Revised 11 May 2011Revised [DATE]PrefaceI. Jurisdiction for Considering Appeals

The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (referred to herein as the Board) has jurisdiction to decide any appeal from a final decision of a contracting officer, pursuant to the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. 7101-7109, or its Charter, 48 CFR Chap. 2, App. A, Pt. 1, relative to a contract made by the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the Department of the Navy, the Department of the Air Force, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or any other department or agency, as permitted by law.

(b) The Board consists of a Chairman, two or more Vice Chairmen, and other Members, all of whom are attorneys at law duly licensed by a state, commonwealth, territory, or the District of Columbia. Board Members are designated Administrative Judges.

(c) There are a number of divisions of the Board, established by the Chairman in such manner as to provide for the most effective and expeditious handling of appeals. The Chairman and a Vice Chairman act as members of each division. Hearings may be held by an Administrative Judge or by a duly authorized examiner. Except for appeals processed under the expedited or accelerated procedure (see Rules 12.2(c) and 12.3(c)), the decision of a majority of a division constitutes the decision of the Board, unless the Chairman refers the appeal to the Board's Senior Deciding Group (consisting of the Chairman, Vice Chairmen, all division heads, and the Judge who drafted the decision), in which event a decision of a majority of that group constitutes the decision of the Board. Appeals referred to the Senior Deciding Group are those of unusual difficulty or significant precedential importance, or that have occasioned serious dispute within the normal division decision process.

(d) The Board will to the fullest extent practicable provide informal, expeditious, and inexpensive resolution of disputes.

(a) Taking an Appeal—For appeals subject to the Contract Disputes Act, notice of an appeal shall be in writing and mailed or otherwise furnished to the Board within 90 days from the date of receipt of a contracting officer's decision. The appellant (contractor) should also furnish a copy of the notice of appeal to the contracting officer. For appeals not subject to the Contract Disputes Act, the contractor should refer to the Disputes clause in its contract for the time period in which it must file a notice of appeal.

(1) Where the contractor has submitted a claim of $100,000 or less to the contracting officer and has requested a written decision within 60 days from receipt of the request, and the contracting officer has not provided a decision within that period, or where such a contractor request has not been made and the contracting officer has not issued a decision within a reasonable time, the contractor may file a notice of appeal as provided in paragraph (a) of this Rule, citing the failure of the contracting officer to issue a decision.

(2) Where the contractor has submitted a properly certified claim over $100,000 to the contracting officer or has submitted a claim that involves no monetary amount, and the contracting officer, within 60 days of receipt of the claim, fails to issue a decision or fails to provide the contractor with a reasonable date by which a decision will be issued, and the contracting officer has failed to issue a decision within a reasonable time, the contractor may file a notice of appeal as provided in paragraph (a) of this Rule, citing the failure of the contracting officer to issue a decision.

(3) A reasonable time shall be determined by taking into account such factors as the size and complexity of the claim and the adequacy of the information provided by the contractor to support the claim.

(4) Where an appeal is before the Board pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this Rule, the Board may, at its option, stay further proceedings pending issuance of a final decision by the contracting officer within such period of time as is determined by the Board.

(5) In lieu of filing a notice of appeal under (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this Rule, the contractor may petition the Board to direct the contracting officer to issue a decision in a specified period of time as determined by the Board.

(b) Contents of Notice of Appeal—A notice of appeal shall indicate that an appeal is being taken and should identify the contract by number, the department and/or agency involved in the dispute, the decision from which the appeal is taken, and the amount in dispute, if any. A copy of the contracting officer's final decision, if any, should be attached to the notice of appeal. The notice of appeal should be signed by the appellant or by the appellant's duly authorized representative or attorney. The complaint referred to in Rule 6 may be filed with the notice of appeal, or the appellant may designate the notice of appeal as a complaint, if it otherwise fulfills the requirements of a complaint.

(c) Docketing of Appeal—When a notice of appeal has been received by the Board, it will be docketed. The Board will provide a written notice of docketing to the appellant and to the Government.

Rule 2. Filing Documents

(a) Documents may be filed with the Board by the following methods:

(1) Governmental Postal Service—Documents may be filed via a governmental postal service. Filing occurs when the document, properly addressed and with sufficient postage, is transferred into the custody of the postal service. Contact the Recorder before submitting classified documents.

(2) Courier—Documents may be filed via courier. Filing occurs when the document is delivered to the Board. Contact the Recorder before submitting classified documents.

(3) Electronic Mail—Documents, except appeal files submitted pursuant to Rule 4, hearing exhibits, classified documents, and documents submitted in camera or under a protective order, may be filed via electronic mail (email). Email attachments should be in PDF format and the attachments may not exceed 10 megabytes total. The transmittal email should include the ASBCA docket number(s), if applicable, and the name of the appellant in the “Subject:” line. Filing occurs upon receipt by the Board's email server. When a document is successfully filed via email, the document should not also be submitted by any other means, unless so directed by the Board. Submit emails to: asbca.recorder@mail.mil.

(4) Facsimile Transmission—Documents, except appeal files submitted pursuant to Rule 4, hearing exhibits, classified documents, and documents submitted in camera or under a protective order, may be filed via facsimile (fax) machine. Due to equipment constraints, transmissions over 10 pages should not be made absent Board permission. Filing occurs upon receipt by the Board. When a document is successfully filed via fax, the document should not also be submitted by any other means, unless so directed by the Board.

(b) Copies to Opposing Party—The party filing any document with the Board will send a copy to the opposing party unless the Board directs otherwise, noting on the document filed with the Board that a copy has been so furnished.

Rule 3. Service Upon Other Parties

Documents may be served personally or by mail, addressed to the party upon whom service is to be made, unless the parties have agreed to an alternate means of service. Subpoenas shall be served as provided in Rule 22.

(a) Duties of the Government—Within 30 days of notice that an appeal has been filed, the Government shall transmit to the Board and the appellant an appeal file consisting of the documents the Government considers relevant to the appeal, including:

(1) The decision from which the appeal is taken;

(2) The contract, including pertinent specifications, amendments, plans, and drawings;

(3) All correspondence between the parties relevant to the appeal, including any claim in response to which the decision was issued.

The Government's appeal file may be supplemented at such times as are fair and reasonable and as ordered by the Board.

(b) Duties of the Appellant—Within 30 days after receipt of a copy of the Government's appeal file, the appellant shall transmit to the Board and the Government any documents not contained therein that the appellant considers relevant to the appeal. Appellant's appeal file may be supplemented at such times as are fair and reasonable and as ordered by the Board.

(c) Organization of Appeal File—Documents in the appeal file may be originals or legible copies, and shall be arranged in chronological order where practicable, numbered sequentially, tabbed, and indexed to identify the contents of the file. Any document without internal page numbers shall have page numbers added. All documents must be in English or include an English translation. Documents shall be submitted in 3-ring binders, with spines not wider than 3 inches wide, with labels identifying the name of the appeal, ASBCA number and tab numbers contained in each volume, on the front and spine of each volume. Each volume shall contain an index of the documents contained in the entire Rule 4 submission.

(d) Status of Documents in Appeal File—Documents contained in the appeal file are considered, without further action by the parties, as part of the record upon which the Board will render its decision. However, a party may object, for reasons stated, to the admissibility of a particular document reasonably in advance of hearing or, if there is no hearing, of settling the record, or in any case as ordered by the Board. If such objection is made, the Board will constructively remove the document from the appeal file and permit the party offering the document to move its admission as evidence in accordance with Rules 10, 11, and 13.

Rule 5. Time, Computation, and Extensions

(a) Where practicable, actions should be taken in less time than the time allowed. Where appropriate and justified, however, extensions of time will be granted. All requests for extensions of time should be in writing and indicate that the other party was contacted to seek its concurrence.

(b) In computing any period of time, the day of the event from which the designated period of time begins to run will not be included, but the last day of the period will be included unless it is a Saturday, Sunday, or a Federal holiday, in which event the period will run to the next business day.

Rule 6. Pleadings

(a) Appellant—Within 30 days after receipt of notice of docketing of the appeal, the appellant shall file with the Board a complaint setting forth simple, concise, and direct statements of each of its claims. The complaint shall also set forth the basis, with appropriate reference to contract provisions, of each claim and the dollar amount claimed, if any. This pleading shall fulfill the generally recognized requirements of a complaint, although no particular form is required. Should the complaint not be timely received, the appellant's claim and notice of appeal may be deemed to set forth its complaint if, in the opinion of the Board, the issues before the Board are sufficiently defined, and the parties will be notified.

(b) Government—Within 30 days from receipt of the complaint, or the aforesaid notice from the Board, the Government shall file with the Board an answer thereto. The answer shall admit or deny the allegations of the complaint and shall set forth simple, concise, and direct statements of the Government's defenses to each claim asserted by the appellant, including any affirmative defenses. Should the answer not be timely received, the Board may enter a general denial on behalf of the Government, and the parties will be notified.

(c) Foreign Law—A party who intends to raise an issue concerning the law of a foreign country shall give notice in its pleadings or other reasonable written notice. The Board, in determining foreign law, may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not submitted by a party or admissible under Rules 10, 11, or 13. The determination of foreign law shall be treated as a ruling on a question of law.

(d) Further Pleadings—The Board upon its own initiative or upon motion may order a party to make a more definite statement of the complaint or answer, or to reply to an answer. The Board may permit either party to amend its pleading upon conditions fair to both parties. When issues within the proper scope of the appeal, but not raised by the pleadings, are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, or by permission of the Board, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised therein. In such instances, motions to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof may be entered, but are not required. If evidence is objected to at a hearing on the ground that it is not within the issues raised by the pleadings, it may be admitted within the proper scope of the appeal, provided however, that the objecting party may be granted an opportunity to meet such evidence.

Rule 7. Motions

(a) Motions Generally—The Board may entertain and rule upon motions and may defer ruling as appropriate. The Board will rule on motions so as to secure, to the fullest extent practicable, the informal, expeditious, and inexpensive resolution of appeals. All motions should be filed as separate documents with an appropriate heading describing the motion. Oral argument on motions is subject to the discretion of the Board.

(b) Jurisdictional Motions—Any motion addressed to the jurisdiction of the Board should be promptly filed. An evidentiary hearing to address disputed jurisdictional facts will be afforded on application of either party or by order of the Board. The Board may defer its decision on the motion pending hearing on the merits. The Board may at any time and on its own initiative raise the issue of its jurisdiction, and shall do so by an appropriate order, affording the parties an opportunity to be heard thereon.

(c) Summary Judgment Motions—

(1) To facilitate disposition of such a motion, the parties should adhere to the following procedures. Where the parties agree that disposition by summary judgment or partial summary judgment is appropriate, they may file a stipulation of all material facts necessary for the Board to rule on the motion. Otherwise, the moving party should file with its motion a “Statement of Undisputed Material Facts,” setting forth the claimed undisputed material facts in separate, numbered paragraphs. The non-moving party should file a “Statement of Genuine Issues of Material Fact,” responding to each numbered paragraph proposed, demonstrating, where appropriate, the existence of material facts in dispute and if appropriate propose additional facts. The moving party and the non-moving party should submit a memorandum of law supporting or opposing summary judgment.

(2) In deciding motions for summary judgment, the Board looks to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance. The parties should explicitly state and support by specific evidence all facts and legal arguments necessary to sustain a party's position. Each party should cite to the record and attach any additional evidence upon which it relies (e.g., affidavits, declarations, excerpts from depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions). The Board may accept a fact properly proposed and supported by one party as undisputed, unless the opposing party properly responds and establishes that it is in dispute.

(d) Response to Motions—A non-moving party has 30 days from receipt of a motion to file its response, unless a different period is ordered by the Board. A moving party has 30 days from receipt of a non-moving party's response to file a reply, unless a different period is ordered by the Board.

Rule 8. Discovery

(a) General Policy and Protective Orders—The parties are encouraged to engage in voluntary discovery procedures. Within 45 days after the pleadings have been filed, the parties must confer concerning each party's discovery needs, including the scheduling of discovery and the production of electronically stored information. Absent stipulation or a Board order, no discovery may be served prior to this conference. Any motion pertaining to a discovery dispute shall include a statement that the movant has in good faith attempted to resolve the discovery dispute without involvement of the Board. In connection with any discovery procedure, the Board may issue orders to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, or undue burden or expense. Those orders may include limitations on the scope, method, time, and place for discovery, and provisions for governing the disclosure of information or documents. Any discovery under this Rule shall be subject to the provisions of Rule 16 with respect to sanctions.

(b) Depositions—when permitted—Subject to paragraph (a) of this Rule, a party may take, or the Board may upon motion order the taking of, testimony of any person by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories before any officer authorized to administer oaths at the place of examination, for use as evidence or for purpose of discovery. The Board expects the parties to make persons under their control available for deposition. The motion for an order shall specify whether the purpose of the deposition is discovery or for use as evidence.

(1) Depositions—Orders—The time, place, and manner of taking depositions shall be as mutually agreed by the parties, or failing such agreement, governed by order of the Board.

(2) Depositions—Use as Evidence—No testimony taken by deposition shall be considered as part of the evidence in the hearing of an appeal until such testimony is offered and received in evidence at such hearing. It will not ordinarily be received in evidence if the deponent can testify at the hearing. The deposition may be used to contradict or impeach the testimony of the deponent given at a hearing. In cases submitted on the record, the Board may receive depositions to supplement the record.

(3) Depositions—Expenses—Each party shall bear its own expenses associated with the taking of any deposition, absent an agreement by the parties or a Board order to the contrary.

(4) Depositions—Subpoenas—Where appropriate, a party may request the issuance of a subpoena under the provisions of Rule 22.

(c) Interrogatories, Requests for Admissions, Requests for Production—Subject to paragraph (a) of this Rule, a party may serve, or the Board may upon motion order:

(i) Written interrogatories to be answered separately in writing, signed under oath and answered or objected to within 45 days after service;

(ii) A request for the admission of specified facts and/or of the authenticity of any documents, to be answered or objected to within 45 days after service, the factual statements and/or the authenticity of the documents to be deemed admitted upon failure of a party to respond to the request; and

(iii) A request for the production, inspection, and copying of any documents, electronic or otherwise, or objects, not privileged, which reasonably may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, to be answered or objected to within 45 days after service. The Board may allow a shorter or longer time.

Rule 9. Pre-Hearing or Pre-Submission Conference

The Board may, upon its own initiative, or upon the request of either party, arrange a conference or order the parties to appear before an Administrative Judge or examiner for a conference to address any issue related to the prosecution of the appeal.

Rule 10. Hearings

(a) Where and When Held—Hearings will be held at such times and places determined by the Board to best serve the interests of the parties and the Board.

(b) Unexcused Absence—The unexcused absence of a party at the time and place set for hearing will not be occasion for delay. In the event of such absence, the hearing will proceed and the evidentiary record will consist solely of the evidence of record at the conclusion of the hearing, except as ordered otherwise by the Board.

(c) Nature of Hearings—Hearings shall be as informal as may be reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances. The parties may offer such evidence as they deem appropriate and as would be admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence or in the sound discretion of the presiding Administrative Judge or examiner. The Federal Rules of Evidence are not binding on the Board but may guide the Board's rulings. The parties may stipulate the testimony that would be given by a witness if the witness were present. The Board may require evidence in addition to that offered by the parties.

(d) Examination of Witnesses—Witnesses will be examined orally under oath or affirmation, unless the presiding Administrative Judge or examiner shall otherwise order. If the testimony of a witness is not given under oath or affirmation, the Board may advise the witness that his or her testimony may be subject to any provision of law imposing penalties for knowingly making false representations in connection with claims.

(e) Interpreters—In appropriate cases, the Board may order that an interpreter be used. An interpreter must be qualified and must be placed under oath or affirmation to give a complete and true translation.

(f) Transcripts—Testimony and argument at hearings will be reported verbatim, unless the Board otherwise orders. The Board will contract for a reporter. No other recordings of the proceedings will be made.

Rule 11. Submission Without a Hearing

(a) Either party may elect to waive a hearing and to submit its case upon the record. Submission of a case without hearing does not relieve the parties from the necessity of proving the facts supporting their allegations or defenses. Affidavits, declarations, depositions, admissions, answers to interrogatories, and stipulations may be employed in addition to the Rule 4 file if moved and accepted into evidence. Such submissions may be supplemented by briefs. The Board may designate, with notice to the parties, any document to be made part of the record.

(b) As appropriate, the Board may also rely on pleadings, prehearing conference memoranda, orders, briefs, stipulations and other documents contained in the Board's file.

(c) Except as the Board may otherwise order, no evidence will be received after notification by the Board that the record is closed.

(d) The weight to be given to any evidence will rest within the discretion of the Board. The Board may require either party, with appropriate notice to the other party, to submit additional evidence on any matter relevant to the appeal.

(e) The record will at all reasonable times be available for inspection by the parties at the offices of the Board.

(a) In appeals where the amount in dispute is $50,000 or less, or in the case of a small business concern (as defined in the Small Business Act and regulations under that Act), $150,000 or less, the appellant may elect to have the appeal processed under a Small Claims (Expedited) procedure requiring decision of the appeal, whenever possible, within 120 days after the Board receives written notice of the appellant's election to utilize this procedure. The details of this procedure appear in section 12.2 of this Rule. An appellant may elect the Accelerated procedure rather than the Small Claims (Expedited) procedure for any appeal where the amount in dispute is $50,000 or less.

(b) In appeals where the amount in dispute is $100,000 or less, the appellant may elect to have the appeal processed under an Accelerated procedure requiring decision of the appeal, whenever possible, within 180 days after the Board receives written notice of the appellant's election to utilize this procedure. The details of this procedure appear in section 12.3 of this Rule.

(c) The appellant's election of either the Small Claims (Expedited) procedure or the Accelerated procedure shall be made by written notice within 60 days after receipt of notice of docketing, unless such period is extended by the Board for good cause. The election, once made, may not be changed or withdrawn except with permission of the Board and for good cause.

(d) The 45-day conference required by Rule 8(a) does not apply to Rule 12 appeals.

12.2 Small Claims (Expedited) Procedure

(a) In appeals proceeding under the Small Claims (Expedited) procedure, the following time periods shall apply:

(1) Within 10 days from the Government's receipt of the appellant's notice of election of the Small Claims (Expedited) procedure, the Government shall send the Board a copy of the contract, the contracting officer's final decision, and the appellant's claim letter or letters, if any. Any other documents required under Rule 4 shall be submitted in accordance with times specified in that Rule unless the Board otherwise directs.

(2) Within 15 days after the Board has acknowledged receipt of the appellant's notice of election, the assigned Administrative Judge should take the following actions, if feasible, in a pre-hearing conference:

(i) Identify and simplify the issues;

(ii) Establish a simplified procedure, including discovery, appropriate to the particular appeal involved;

(iii) Determine whether either party elects a hearing, and if so, fix a time and place therefor; and

(iv) Establish an expedited schedule for the timely resolution of the appeal.

(b) Pleadings, discovery, and other prehearing activity will be allowed only as consistent with the requirement to conduct a hearing, or if no hearing is elected, to close the record on a date that will allow the timely issuance of the decision. The Board may shorten time periods prescribed or allowed under these Rules as necessary to enable the Board to decide the appeal within the 120-day period.

(c) Written decisions by the Board in appeals processed under the Small Claims (Expedited) procedure will be short and will contain only summary findings of fact and conclusions. Decisions will be rendered for the Board by a single Administrative Judge. If there has been a hearing, the Administrative Judge presiding at the hearing may at the conclusion of the hearing and after entertaining such oral argument as deemed appropriate, render on the record oral summary findings of fact, conclusions, and a decision of the appeal. Whenever such an oral decision is rendered, the Board will subsequently furnish the parties an authenticated copy of such oral decision for record and payment purposes and to establish the starting date for the period for filing a motion for reconsideration under Rule 20.

(d) A decision under Rule 12.2 shall have no value as precedent, and in the absence of fraud, shall be final and conclusive and may not be appealed or set aside.

12.3 Accelerated Procedure

(a) In appeals proceeding under the Accelerated procedure, the parties are encouraged, to the extent possible consistent with adequate presentation of their factual and legal positions, to waive pleadings, discovery, and briefs. The Board may shorten time periods prescribed or allowed under these Rules as necessary to enable the Board to decide the appeal within the 180-day period.

(b) Within 30 days after the Board has acknowledged receipt of the appellant's notice of election, the assigned Administrative Judge should take the following actions, if feasible, in a pre-hearing conference:

(1) Identify and simplify the issues;

(2) Establish a simplified procedure, including discovery, appropriate to the particular appeal involved;

(3) Determine whether either party elects a hearing, and if so, fix a time and place therefor; and

(4) Establish an accelerated schedule for the timely resolution of the appeal.

(c) Written decisions by the Board in appeals processed under the Accelerated procedure will normally be short and contain only summary findings of fact and conclusions. Decisions will be rendered for the Board by a single Administrative Judge with the concurrence of a Vice Chairman, or by a majority among these two and the Chairman in case of disagreement.

12.4 Motions for Reconsideration in Rule 12 Appeals

Motions for reconsideration of appeals decided under either the Small Claims (Expedited) procedure or the Accelerated procedure need not be decided within the original 120-day or 180-day limit, but all such motions will be processed and decided promptly so as to be consistent with the intent of this Rule.

Rule 13. Settling the Record in Appeals With a Hearing

(a) The record upon which the Board's decision will be rendered consists of the documents admitted under Rule 4, the documents admitted into evidence as hearing exhibits, together with the hearing transcript. The Board may designate with notice to the parties, any document to be made part of the record.

(b) As appropriate, the Board may also rely on pleadings, pre-hearing conference memoranda, orders, briefs, stipulations, and other documents contained in the Board's file.

(c) Except as the Board may otherwise order, no evidence will be received after completion of an oral hearing.

(d) The weight to be given to any evidence will rest within the discretion of the Board. The Board may require either party, with appropriate notice to the other party, to submit additional evidence on any matter relevant to the appeal.

(e) The record will at all reasonable times be available for inspection by the parties at the offices of the Board.

Rule 14. Briefs

(a) Pre-Hearing Briefs—The Board may require the parties to submit pre-hearing briefs. If the Board does not require pre-hearing briefs, either party may, upon appropriate and sufficient notice to the other party, furnish a pre-hearing brief to the Board.

(b) Post-Hearing Briefs—Post-hearing briefs may be submitted upon such terms as may be directed by the presiding Administrative Judge or examiner at the conclusion of the hearing.

Rule 15. Representation

(a) An individual appellant may represent his or her interests before the Board; a corporation may be represented by one of its officers; and a partnership or joint venture by one of its members; or any of these by an attorney at law duly licensed in any state, commonwealth, territory, the District of Columbia, or in a foreign country. Anyone representing an appellant shall file a written notice of appearance with the Board.

(b) The Government shall be represented by counsel. Counsel for the Government shall file a written notice of appearance with the Board.

Rule 16. Sanctions

If any party fails to obey an order issued by the Board, the Board may impose such sanctions as it considers necessary to the just and expeditious conduct of the appeal.

Rule 17. Dismissal or Default for Failure To Prosecute or Defend

Whenever the record discloses the failure of either party to file documents required by these Rules, respond to notices or correspondence from the Board, comply with orders of the Board, or otherwise indicates an intention not to continue the prosecution or defense of an appeal, the Board may, in the case of a default by the appellant, issue an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute. In the case of a default by the Government, the Board may issue an order to show cause why the Board should not act thereon pursuant to Rule 16. If good cause is not shown, the Board may take appropriate action.

Rule 18. Suspensions; Dismissal Without Prejudice

(a) The Board may suspend the proceedings by agreement of the parties for settlement discussions, or for good cause shown.

(b) In certain cases, appeals docketed before the Board are required to be placed in a suspense status and the Board is unable to proceed with disposition thereof for reasons not within the control of the Board. Where the suspension has continued, or may continue, for an inordinate length of time, the Board may dismiss such appeals from its docket for a period of time without prejudice to their restoration. Unless either party or the Board moves to reinstate the appeal within the time period set forth in the dismissal order, or if no time period is set forth, within one year from the date of the dismissal order, the dismissal shall be deemed to be with prejudice.

Rule 19. Decisions

(a) Decisions of the Board will be made in writing and authenticated copies of the decision will be sent simultaneously to both parties. All orders and decisions, except those as may be required by law to be held confidential, will be available to the public. Decisions of the Board will be made solely upon the record.

(b) Any monetary award shall be promptly paid.

(c) In awards that may be paid from the Judgment Fund, 31 U.S.C. 1304, the Recorder will forward the required forms to each party with the decision. If the parties do not contemplate an appeal or motion for reconsideration, they will execute the forms indicating that no judicial review will be sought. The Government agency will forward the required forms with a copy of the decision to the Department of the Treasury for certification of payment.

(d) When the parties settle an appeal in favor of the appellant, they may file with the Board a stipulation setting forth the amount of the settlement due to the appellant. By joint motion, the parties may request that the Board issue a decision in the nature of a consent judgment, awarding the stipulated amount to the appellant. These decisions will be processed in accordance with paragraph (c) of this Rule.

(e) After a decision has become final the Board may, upon request of a party and after notice to the other party, grant the withdrawal of original exhibits, or any part thereof. The Board may require the substitution of true copies of exhibits or any part thereof as a condition of granting permission for such withdrawal.

Rule 20. Motion for Reconsideration

A motion for reconsideration may be filed by either party. It shall set forth specifically the grounds relied upon to grant the motion. The motion must be filed within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of the decision of the Board by the party filing the motion. An opposing party must file any cross-motion for reconsideration within 30 days from its receipt of the motion for reconsideration. Extensions in the period to file a motion will not be granted. Extensions to file a memorandum in support of a timely-filed motion may be granted.

Rule 21. Remand From Court

Whenever any Court remands an appeal to the Board for further proceedings, each of the parties shall, within 30 days of receipt of such remand, submit a report to the Board recommending procedures to be followed so as to comply with the Court's remand. The Board will consider the reports and enter an order governing the remanded appeal.

Rule 22. Subpoenas

(a) Voluntary Cooperation—Each party is expected:

(1) To cooperate and make available witnesses and evidence under its control as requested by the other party without issuance of a subpoena, and

(b) General—Upon written request of either party, or on his or her own initiative, an Administrative Judge may issue a subpoena requiring:

(1) Testimony at a deposition—The deposing of a witness in the city or county where the witness resides or is employed or transacts business in person, or at another location convenient for the witness that is specifically determined by the Board;

(2) Testimony at a hearing—The attendance of a witness for the purpose of taking testimony at a hearing; and

(3) Production of books and records—The production by the witness at the deposition or hearing of books and records (including electronically stored information and other tangible things) designated in the subpoena.

(c) Request for Subpoena—

(1) A request for subpoena shall normally be filed at least:

(i) 15 days before a scheduled deposition where the attendance of a witness at a deposition is sought; or

(ii) 30 days before a scheduled hearing where the attendance of a witness at a hearing is sought.

(iii) The Board may honor a request for subpoena not made within these time limitations.

(2) A request for a subpoena shall state the reasonable scope and general relevance to the case of the testimony and of any books and records sought. The Board may require resubmission of a request that does not provide this information.

(d) Requests to Quash or Modify—Upon written request by the person subpoenaed or by a party, made within 10 days after service but in any event not later than the time specified in the subpoena for compliance, the Board may quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable or oppressive or for other good cause shown, or require the person in whose behalf the subpoena was issued to advance the reasonable cost of producing subpoenaed books and papers. Where circumstances require, the Board may act upon such a request at any time after a copy of the request has been served upon the opposing party.

(e) Form of Subpoena—

(1) Every subpoena shall state the name of the Board and the caption of the appeal, and shall command each person to whom it is directed to attend and give testimony, and if appropriate, to produce specified books and records at a time and place therein specified. In issuing a subpoena to a requesting party, the Administrative Judge will sign the subpoena, enter the name of the witness and may otherwise leave it blank. The party to whom the subpoena is issued shall complete the subpoena before service.

(2) Where the witness is located in a foreign country, a letter rogatory may be issued and served under the circumstances and in the manner provided in 28 U.S.C. 1781.

(f) Service—

(1) The party requesting issuance of a subpoena shall arrange for service.

(2) A subpoena requiring the attendance of a witness at a deposition or hearing may be served in any state, commonwealth, territory, or the District of Columbia. A subpoena may be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal, or by any other person who is not a party and not less than 18 years of age. Service of a subpoena upon a person named therein shall be made by personally delivering a copy to that person and tendering the fees for one day's attendance and the mileage provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1821 or other applicable law. However, where the subpoena is issued on behalf of the Government, payment need not be tendered in advance of attendance.

(3) The party at whose instance a subpoena is issued shall be responsible for the payment of fees and mileage of the witness and of the officer who serves the subpoena. The failure to make payment of such charges on demand may be deemed by the Board as a sufficient ground for striking such evidence as the Board deems appropriate.

(g) Contumacy or Refusal to Obey a Subpoena—In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena by a person who resides, is found, or transacts business within the jurisdiction of a United States District Court, the Board may apply to the Court through the Attorney General of the United States for an order requiring the person to appear before the Board to give testimony or produce evidence or both. Any failure of any such person to obey the order of the Court may be punished by the Court as a contempt thereof.

Rule 23. Ex Parte Communications

No member of the Board or of the Board's staff shall entertain, nor shall any person directly or indirectly involved in an appeal, submit to the Board or the Board's staff, ex parte, any evidence, explanation, analysis, or advice, whether written or oral, regarding any matter at issue in an appeal. This Rule does not apply to consultation among Board members or its staff or to ex parte communications concerning the Board's administrative functions or procedures.

Rule 24. Effective Date

These rules and addendums are applicable to appeals processed under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 7101-7109, and other appeals to the extent consistent with law. They apply to all appeals filed on or after the date of final publication in the Federal Register, and to those appeals filed before that date, unless that application is inequitable or unfair.

(b) Scope of procedures—These procedures are intended to assist the parties in the processing of EAJA applications for award of fees and other expenses incurred in connection with appeals pursuant to the CDA.

(c) Eligibility of applicants—

(1) To be eligible for an EAJA award, an applicant must be a party appellant that has prevailed in a CDA appeal before the Board and must be one of the following:

(i) An individual with a net worth which did not exceed $2,000,000 at the time the appeal was filed; or

(ii) Any owner of an unincorporated business, or any partnership, corporation, association, unit of local Government, or organization, the net worth of which does not exceed $7,000,000 and which does not have more than 500 employees; except:

(A) Certain charitable organizations or cooperative associations; and

(B) For the purposes of 5 U.S.C. 504(a)(4), a small entity as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601, need not comply with any net worth requirement (see 5 U.S.C. 504(b)(1)(B)).

(2) For the purpose of eligibility, the net worth and number of employees of an applicant shall be determined as of the date the underlying CDA appeal was filed with the Board.

(d) Standards of awards. A prevailing eligible applicant shall receive an award of fees and expenses incurred in connection with a CDA appeal, unless the position of the Government over which the applicant prevailed was substantially justified, or if special circumstances make the award unjust.

(e) Allowable fees and other expenses. (1) Fees and other expenses must be reasonable. Awards will be based upon the prevailing market rates, subject to paragraph (e)(2) of this section, for the kind and quality of services furnished by attorneys, agents, and expert witnesses.

(2) No award for the fee of an attorney or agent may exceed $125 per hour. No expert witness shall be compensated at a rate in excess of the highest rate of compensation for expert witnesses paid by the agency involved.

(3) The reasonable cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project, prepared on behalf of a party may be awarded, to the extent that the study or other matter was necessary in connection with the appeal and the charge for the service does not exceed the prevailing rate for similar services.

(f) Time for filing of applications—An application may be filed after an appellant has prevailed in the CDA appeal within 30 days after the Board's disposition of the appeal has become final.

(g) Application contents—

(1) An EAJA application shall comply with each of the following:

(i) Show that the applicant is a prevailing party;

(ii) Show that the applicant is eligible to receive an award;

(iii) Allege that the position of the government was not substantially justified; and

(iv) Show the amount of fees and other expenses sought, including an itemized statement thereof.

(2) An original and one copy of the application and exhibits should be filed with the Board. The applicant will forward one copy to the Government.

(3) When a compliant application has been timely filed, the Board, in order to obtain more detailed information, may require supplementation of the application.

(h) Net worth exhibit—Each applicant for which a determination of net worth is required under the EAJA should provide with its application a detailed net worth exhibit showing the net worth of the applicant when the CDA appeal was filed. The exhibit may be in any form convenient to the applicant that provides full disclosure of assets, liabilities, and net worth.

(i) Fees and other expenses exhibit—The application should be accompanied by a detailed fees and other expenses exhibit fully documenting the fees and other expenses, including the cost of any study, analysis, engineering report, test, or project, for which an award is sought. The date and a description of all services rendered or costs incurred should be indicated. A separate itemized statement should be submitted for each professional firm or individual whose services are covered by the application showing the hours spent in connection with the CDA appeal by each individual, a description of the particular services performed by specific date, the rate at which each fee has been computed, any expenses for which reimbursement is sought, the total amount claimed, and the total amount paid or payable by the applicant or by any other person or entity for the services provided. The Board may require the applicant to provide vouchers, receipts, or other substantiation for any expenses sought.

(j) Answer to application—

(1) Within 30 days after receipt by the Government of an application, the Government may file an answer. Unless the Government requests an extension of time for filing or files a statement of intent to negotiate under paragraph (2) below, failure to file an answer within the 30-day period may be treated by the Board at its discretion as a general denial to the application on behalf of the Government.

(2) If the Government and the applicant believe that the matters raised in the application can be resolved by mutual agreement, they may jointly file a statement of intent to negotiate a settlement. Filing of this statement will extend the time for filing an answer for an additional 30 days. Further extensions may be requested by the parties.

(3) The answer will explain in detail any objections to the award requested and identify the facts relied upon in support of the Government's position.

(4) An original and one copy of the answer should be filed with the Board. The Government will forward one copy to the applicant.

(k) Reply—Within 15 days after receipt of an answer, the applicant may file a reply. An original and one copy of the reply will be filed with the Board. The applicant will forward one copy to the Government.

(l) Award proceedings—

(1) The Board may enter an order prescribing the procedure to be followed or take such other action as may be deemed appropriate under the EAJA. Further proceedings will be held only when necessary for full and fair resolution of the issues arising from the application.

(2) A request that the Board order further proceedings under this paragraph will describe the disputed issues, explain why the additional proceedings are deemed necessary to resolve the issues and specifically identify any information sought and its relationship to the disputed issues.

(m) Evidence—(1) Decisions on the merits. When a CDA appeal is decided on the merits, other than by a consent judgment, the record relating to whether the Government's position under the EAJA was substantially justified will be limited to the record in the CDA appeal. Evidence relevant to other issues in the award proceeding may be submitted.

(2) Other dispositions. When a CDA appeal is settled, or decided by a consent judgment, either party in proceedings under the EAJA may, for good cause shown, supplement the record established in the CDA appeal with affidavits and other supporting evidence relating to whether the position of the agency was substantially justified or other issues in the award proceeding.

(n) Decision—Decisions under the EAJA will be rendered by the Administrative Judge or a majority of the judges who would have participated in a motion for reconsideration of the underlying CDA appeal. The decision of the Board will include written findings and conclusions and the basis therefor. The Board's decision on an application for fees and other expenses under the EAJA will be the final administrative decision regarding the EAJA application.

(o) Motions for reconsideration—Either party may file a motion for reconsideration. Motions for reconsideration must be filed within 30 days of receipt of the Board's EAJA decision. Extensions in the period to file a motion will not be granted. Extensions to file a memorandum in support of a timely filed motion may be granted.

(p) Payment of Awards—The Board's EAJA awards will be paid directly by the contracting agency over which the applicant prevailed in the underlying CDA appeal.

Addendum IIAlternative Methods of Dispute Resolution

1. The Contract Disputes Act (CDA), 41 U.S.C. 7105(g)(1), states that boards of contract appeals “shall . . . to the fullest extent practicable provide informal, expeditious, and inexpensive resolution of disputes”. Resolution of a dispute at the earliest stage feasible, by the fastest and least expensive method possible, benefits both parties. To that end, the parties are encouraged to consider Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedures for pre-claim and pre-final decision matters, as well as appeals pending before the Board. The Board may also conduct ADRs for any Federal agency. However, if the matter is not pending before the Board under its CDA jurisdiction, any settlement may not be paid out of the Judgment Fund.

2. The ADR methods described in this Addendum are intended to suggest techniques that have worked in the past. Any appropriate method that brings the parties together in settlement, or partial settlement, of their disputes is a good method. The ADR methods listed are not intended to preclude the parties' use of other ADR techniques that do not require the Board's participation, such as settlement negotiations, fact-finding conferences or procedures, mediation, or minitrials not involving use of the Board's personnel. Any method, or combination of methods, including one that will result in a binding decision, may be selected by the parties without regard to the dollar amount in dispute.

3. The parties must jointly request ADR procedures at the Board. The request must be approved by the Board. The Board may also schedule a conference to explore the desirability and selection of an ADR method and related procedures. If an ADR involving the Board's participation is requested and approved by the Board, a Neutral will be appointed. If an Administrative Judge has already been assigned to an appeal, the same judge will normally be assigned to be the Neutral in an ADR. If an Administrative Judge has not yet been assigned to the appeal, or if the subject of the ADR is a matter pending before the contracting officer prior to any appeal, the Board will appoint an Administrative Judge to be the Neutral. In such instances, as well as situations in which the parties prefer that an assigned Administrative Judge not be appointed to serve as the Neutral, the parties may submit a list of at least three preferred Administrative Judges and the Board will endeavor to accommodate their preferences.

4. To facilitate full, frank and open discussion and presentations, any Neutral who has participated in a non-binding ADR procedure that has failed to resolve the underlying dispute will be recused from further participation in the matter unless the parties expressly agree otherwise in writing and the Board concurs. Further, the recused Neutral will not discuss the merits of the dispute or substantive matters involved in the ADR proceedings with other Board personnel.

5. Written material prepared specifically for use in an ADR proceeding, oral presentations made at an ADR proceeding, and all discussions in connection with such proceedings between the parties and the Neutral are confidential and, unless otherwise specifically agreed by the parties, inadmissible as evidence in any pending or future Board proceeding involving the parties or matter in dispute. However, evidence otherwise admissible before the Board is not rendered inadmissible because of its use in the ADR proceeding.

6. The ADR method and the procedures and requirements implementing the ADR method will be prescribed by the written agreement of the parties and approved by the Board. ADR methods can be used successfully at any stage of the litigation.

7. The following are examples of ADR methods commonly used at the Board:

(a) Nonbinding—

Mediations: A Neutral is an Administrative Judge who will not normally hear or have any formal or informal decision-making authority in the matter and who is appointed for the purpose of facilitating settlement. In many circumstances, settlement can be fostered by a frank, in-depth discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each party's position with the Neutral. The agenda for meetings with the Neutral will be flexible to accommodate the requirements of the case. To further the settlement effort, the Neutral may meet with the parties either jointly or individually. A Neutral's recommendations are not binding on the parties. When this method is selected, the ADR agreement must contain a provision in which the parties and counsel agree not to subpoena the Neutral in any legal action or administrative proceeding of any kind to produce any notes or documents related to the ADR proceeding or to testify concerning any such notes or documents or concerning his/her thoughts or impressions.

(b) Binding—

Summary Proceeding With Binding Decision: A summary proceeding with binding decision is a procedure whereby the resolution of the appeal is expedited and the parties try their appeal informally before an Administrative Judge. A binding “bench” decision may be issued upon conclusion of the proceeding, or a binding summary written decision will be issued by the judge no later than ten days following the later of conclusion of the proceeding or receipt of a transcript. The parties must agree in the ADR agreement that all decisions, rulings, and orders by the Board under this method shall be final, conclusive, not appealable, and may not be set aside, except for fraud. All such decisions, rulings, and orders will have no precedential value. Pre-hearing, hearing, and post-hearing procedures and rules applicable to appeals generally will be modified or eliminated to expedite resolution of the appeal.

(c) Other Agreed Methods—The parties and the Board may agree upon other informal methods, binding or nonbinding that are structured and tailored to suit the requirements of the individual case.

8. The above-listed ADR procedures are intended to shorten and simplify the Board's more formalized procedures. Generally, if the parties resolve their dispute by agreement, they benefit in terms of cost and time savings and maintenance or restoration of amicable relations. The Board will not view the parties' participation in ADR proceedings as a sign of weakness. Any method adopted for dispute resolution depends upon both parties having a firm, good faith commitment to resolve their differences. Absent such intention, the best structured dispute resolution procedure is unlikely to be successful.

DoD is proposing to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to create an overarching prescription for a tax-related clause with an alternate and adds a separate prescription for the basic clause. The rule also proposes to include in the regulation the full text of the alternate clause.

DATES:

Comments on the proposed rule should be submitted in writing to the address shown below on or before April 29, 2014, to be considered in the formation of a final rule.

ADDRESSES:

Submit comments identified by DFARS Case 2013-D025, using any of the following methods:

○ Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by entering “DFARS Case 2013-D025” under the heading “Enter keyword or ID” and selecting “Search.” Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “DFARS Case 2013-D025.” Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “DFARS Case 2013-D025” on your attached document.

○ Email: dfars@mail.mil. Include DFARS Case 2013-D025 in the subject line of the message.

Comments received generally will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov, approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

DoD is undertaking a revision of provisions and clauses with alternates and the associated prescriptions, in order to clarify usage and facilitate the use of automated contract writing systems. These changes do not affect the meaning or applicability of the provisions or clauses.

II. Discussion

This proposed rule addresses the single DFARS part 229 clause that has an alternate, 252.229-7001, Tax Relief. The naming convention results in proposed new clause titles, i.e., Tax Relief—Basic and Tax Relief—Alternate I.

An umbrella prescription is proposed for the elements common to the basic clause and the alternate. The specific prescriptions for the basic clause and the alternate address only the requirements for their use that enable the selection of the basic or the alternate. The planned changes will increase the clarity and ease of use but will not revise the applicability in any way. The presentation of the text of the clause alternate in the regulations would no longer consist solely of paragraph (d) with a reference to the basic clause, but would include the entire text of paragraphs (a) through (c) along with paragraph (d). Further, this proposed rule also revises the applicable clause preface, i.e., the language in part 252 that precedes the clause, but still identifies the difference from the basic clause.

III. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Executive Orders (E.O.s) 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This is not a significant regulatory action and, therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.

IV. Regulatory Flexibility Act

DoD does not expect this proposed rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because it merely revises the prescriptions for a basic clause with alternate, and includes the full text of the clause in the alternate. However, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis has been performed and is summarized as follows:

The purpose of this rule is to amend the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) to create an overarching prescription for use of the basic and alternate of DFARS clause 252.229-7001, Tax Relief, a separate prescription for the basic clause, and to include the full text of the clause alternate.

Employing a prescription for the basic version and alternate of DFARS clause 252.229-7001 will facilitate the use of automated contract writing systems. The current convention requires the prescription for the basic provision or clause to address all the possibilities covered by the alternates, and then the prescription for each alternate addresses only what is different for the use of that particular alternate. Instead of the current convention for alternates to show only paragraphs changed from the basic version of the provision or clause, this rule proposes to include the full text of the clause alternate.

There will be no impact on small business entities since DFARS clause 252.229-7001 is used only in solicitations and contracts when award is made to a foreign concern and performance is in a foreign country.

This rule does not add any new information collection requirements. The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. No alternatives were identified that will accomplish the objectives of the rule.

DoD invites comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.

DoD will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by this rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610 (DFARS Case 2013-D025), in correspondence.

V. Paperwork Reduction Act

The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 229 and 252

Government procurement.

Manuel Quinones,Editor, Defense Acquisition Regulations System.

Therefore, 48 CFR parts 229 and 252 are proposed to be amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for parts 229 and 252 continues to read as follows:Authority:

41 U.S.C. 1303 and 48 CFR chapter 1.

PART 229—TAXES2. Revise section 229.402-70 to read as follows:229.402-70Additional clauses.

(a) Use the basic or the alternate of the clause at 252.229-7001, Tax Relief, in solicitations and contracts when a contract will be awarded to a foreign concern for performance in a foreign country.

(1) Use the clause Tax Relief—Basic in solicitations and contracts when the contract will be performed in a foreign country other than Germany.

(2) Use the clause Tax Relief—Alternate I in solicitations and contracts when the contract will be performed in Germany.

Alternate I. As prescribed at 229.402-70(a)(2), use the following clause, which adds a paragraph (d) not included in the basic clause.

Tax Relief—Alternate (Date)

(a) Prices set forth in this contract are exclusive of all taxes and duties from which the United States Government is exempt by virtue of tax agreements between the United States Government and the Contractor's government. The following taxes or duties have been excluded from the contract price:

(c) When items manufactured to United States Government specifications are being acquired, the Contractor shall identify the materials or components intended to be imported in order to ensure that relief from import duties is obtained. If the Contractor intends to use imported products from inventories on hand, the price of which includes a factor for import duties, the Contractor shall ensure the United States Government's exemption from these taxes. The Contractor may obtain a refund of the import duties from its government or request the duty-free import of an amount of supplies or components corresponding to that used from inventory for this contract.

(d) Tax relief will be claimed in Germany pursuant to the provisions of the Agreement Between the United States of America and Germany Concerning Tax Relief to be Accorded by Germany to United States Expenditures in the Interest of Common Defense. The Contractor shall use Abwicklungsschein fuer abgabenbeguenstigte Lieferungen/Leistungen nach dem Offshore Steuerabkommen (Performance Certificate for Tax-Free Deliveries/Performance according to the Offshore Tax Relief Agreement) or other documentary evidence acceptable to the German tax authorities. All purchases made and paid for on a tax-free basis during a 30-day period may be accumulated, totaled, and reported as tax-free.

(End of clause)[FR Doc. 2014-04157 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 5001-06-PDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCENational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration50 CFR Part 622RIN 0648-BD08Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery Off the Atlantic States; Amendment 5AGENCY:

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Notice of availability; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) has submitted Amendment 5 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery off the Atlantic States (FMP) for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. Amendment 5 proposes actions to revise the acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limits (ACLs) and accountability measures (AMs) for the commercial and recreational sectors for dolphin and wahoo, and update the framework procedures for the FMP. The purpose of Amendment 5 is to help achieve optimum yield (OY) within the dolphin and wahoo fishery and to minimize socio-economic impacts in accordance with the requirements of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

DATES:

Written comments must be received on or before April 29, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments on Amendment 5 identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2013-0170” by any of the following methods:

Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

Electronic copies of Amendment 5, which includes an environmental assessment, a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office Web site at http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sustainable_fisheries/s_atl/dw/2013/am5/index.html.

The dolphin and wahoo fishery off the Atlantic states is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving a plan or amendment, publish an announcement in the Federal Register notifying the public that the plan or amendment is available for review and comment.

Background

The final rule for the Comprehensive ACL Amendment included Amendment 3 to the FMP, which established ACLs (including ACL allocations to both the recreational and commercial sectors), acceptable biological catches (ABCs), recreational annual catch targets (ACTs), and accountability measures (AMs) for dolphin and wahoo (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012). Recreational catch estimates used in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment were determined with data collected by the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS), which was the best scientific information available at that time. NMFS has made significant improvements in the data collection and catch estimation methodologies that are used to collect and analyze the recreational data for the computation of ABCs, as well as ACLs and ACTs. NMFS now estimates recreational landings using the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP).

The MRIP collects recreational data on a more frequent basis and provides more accurate recreational catch estimates by accounting for potential biases such as possible differences in catch rates at high-activity and low-activity fishing sites, as well as variation in fishing effort throughout the day. As described in Amendment 5, the MRIP values used to estimate recreational landings, along with updates to headboat and commercial landings, are now the best scientific information available to revise the ABC catch estimates, ACLs, recreational ACTs, and AMs for dolphin and wahoo. Updates to the commercial and headboat landings were included in the revisions to the ACLs and ACTs, because the ABC control rule and subsequent ABCs and ACLs established in the Comprehensive ACL Amendment used data from both the recreational and commercial sectors (77 FR 15916, March 16, 2012). The headboat and commercial data updates reflect NMFS's ongoing data quality assurance and quality control protocols and reflect the the best available scientific information.

These revisions are necessary because if the ABC, ACL, and ACT values are not updated using the new MRIP estimates, the recreational ACLs would be based on MRFSS data while the landings information being used to track the recreational ACLs would be estimated using MRIP data. This would result in inconsistencies in how the ACLs are calculated versus how the ACLs are monitored.

Actions Contained in Amendment 5

Amendment 5 would revise the ABCs, ACLs, and AMs for the commercial and recreational sectors for dolphin and wahoo, revise the recreational ACTs for dolphin and wahoo, and update the framework procedures for the FMP.

Dolphin and Wahoo ABCs

Amendment 5 would revise the ABCs for dolphin and wahoo. The ABC for dolphin would increase from 14,596,216 lb (6,620,732 kg) to 15,344,846 lb (6,960,305 kg). The ABC for wahoo would increase from 1,491,785 lb (676,662 kg) to 1,794,960 lb (814,180 kg). The revised ABCs would be established using MRIP data as opposed to the current ABCs that were established using MRFSS data.

Dolphin Commercial and Recreational ACLs

Amendment 5 would revise the dolphin commercial and recreational ACLs. The current dolphin commercial ACL of 1,065,524 lb (483,314 kg) would be increased to 1,157,001 lb (524,807 kg). The current dolphin recreational ACL of 13,530,692 lb (6,137,419 kg) would be increased to 14,187,845 lb (6,435,498 kg). The increases in the ACLs for dolphin are not large, and negligible effects are expected to the stock and the human environment.

Wahoo Commercial and Recreational ACLs

Amendment 5 would revise the wahoo commercial and recreational ACLs. The wahoo commercial ACL would be increased from 64,147 lb (29,097 kg) to 70,542 lb (31,997 kg). The wahoo recreational ACL would be increased from 1,427,638 lb (647,566 kg) to 1,724,418 lb (782,183 kg). The effects of the small increases in ACLs for wahoo are expected to be negligible to the stock and the human environment.

Dolphin and Wahoo Commercial AMs

The current commercial AMs for dolphin and wahoo close the commercial sector for the respective species for the remainder of the fishing year, if commercial landings as estimated by the Science and Research Director (SRD), reach or are projected to reach the commercial ACL (in-season closure).

Amendment 5 would also provide that if the commercial ACL is met or projected to be met, then the commercial ACL for the respective species in the following fishing year would be reduced by the amount of the commercial ACL overage. However, the commercial ACL overage adjustment would only be applied if the species is overfished and the total ACL (combined commercial and recreational ACLs) is exceeded. The Council determined the commercial ACL overage adjustment, combined with the in-season AM closure, would offer greater protection to the stocks and provided the best management strategy for the commercial sector based on the biology and recent catch levels of dolphin and wahoo.

Dolphin and Wahoo Recreational AMs

The current recreational AMs for dolphin and wahoo provide that if recreational landings, as estimated by the SRD, exceed the recreational ACL, then during the following fishing year, recreational landings will be monitored for a persistence in increased landings and, if necessary, the length of the following recreational fishing season will be reduced by the amount necessary to ensure recreational landings do not exceed the recreational ACL in the following fishing year. However, the length of the recreational season will not be reduced during the following fishing year if the NMFS Southeast Regional Administrator (RA) determines, using the best scientific information available, that a reduction in the length of the following fishing season is unnecessary.

Amendment 5 would modify the recreational AM to reduce the length of the fishing season and the recreational ACL in the fishing year following any recreational ACL overage, if the stock is overfished and the total ACL (commercial and recreational ACLs combined) is exceeded. However, the recreational ACL overage adjustment and fishing season reduction would not be applied if the RA determines, using the best scientific information available, that such a reduction is unnecessary. The ability to reduce the recreational ACL when an overage of the respective ACL occurs would provide additional protection to the dolphin and wahoo stocks.

Dolphin and Wahoo Recreational ACTs

Amendment 5 would increase the current dolphin recreational ACT of 11,595,803 lb (5,259,768 kg) to 12,769,061 (5,791,949 kg) and increase the current wahoo recreational ACT of 1,164,953 lb (528,414 kg) to 1,258,825 lb (570,993 kg). The current recreational ACTs for dolphin and wahoo function as performance standards, and do not have management measures associated with them, such as triggering AMs.

Dolphin and Wahoo FMP Framework Procedures

The current framework procedures for dolphin and wahoo were implemented in 2004 through the FMP (69 FR 30235, May 27, 2004). Amendment 5 would revise the framework procedures for the FMP. These revisions would include adding an ABC control rule, ACLs, ACTs, and AMs to the measures that could be revised via the framework amendment process. Additionally, Amendment 5 would allow an ABC, ACL, and ACT to be modified using an abbreviated framework procedure, whereby after the Council has taken final action to change an ABC, ACL, and/or ACT, the Council would submit a letter containing an analysis of the relevant biological, economic, social, and administrative information necessary to support the action to the NMFS RA. Based on the information provided by the Council, the RA would determine whether or not the requested modifications are warranted. If the requested modifications may be warranted, NMFS would develop the appropriate documentation to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable law, and propose the action through rulemaking. NMFS anticipates this expedited process will shorten the time it would take to make routine changes to harvest limits in response to new scientific information, while allowing the public adequate time to comment on any change.

Dolphin Trip Limit

Amendment 5 also contained an action to establish a commercial trip limit for dolphin in the Atlantic exclusive economic zone. However, the Council chose to take no action on that issue at this time because a commercial trip limit would have very little effect on constraining harvest of dolphin as most commercial trips harvest 1,000 lb (454 kg) or less of dolphin and the ACL had not been met. The Council has not historically imposed trip limits on fishers in the commercial sector if an ACL has not been met.

A proposed rule that would implement measures outlined in Amendment 5 has been drafted. In accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS is evaluating Amendment 5 to determine whether it is consistent with the FMP, the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law. If the determination is affirmative, NMFS will publish the proposed rule in the Federal Register for public review and comment.

Consideration of Public Comments

The Council submitted Amendment 5 for Secretarial review, approval, and implementation. NMFS' decision to approve, partially approve, or disapprove Amendment 5 will be based, in part, on consideration of comments, recommendations, and information received during the comment period on this notice of availability.

Public comments received on or before April 29, 2014, will be considered by NMFS in the approval, partial approval, or disapproval decision regarding Amendment 5. Comments received after that date will not be considered by NMFS in this decision. All comments received by NMFS on the amendment or the proposed rule during their respective comment periods will be addressed in the final rule.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Proposed rule; request for comments.

SUMMARY:

NMFS issues this proposed rule for the 2014 Pacific whiting fishery under the authority of the Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), and the Pacific Whiting Act of 2006. This proposed rule would allocate 17.5 percent of the U.S. Total Allowable Catch of Pacific whiting for 2014 to Pacific Coast Indian tribes that have a Treaty right to harvest groundfish.

DATES:

Comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than March 31, 2014.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2014-0020, by any of the following methods:

Instructions: Comments sent by any other method, to any other address or individual, or received after the end of the comment period, may not be considered by NMFS. All comments received are part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing on www.regulations.gov without change. All personal identifying information (e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential business information, or otherwise sensitive information submitted voluntarily by the sender will be publicly accessible. NMFS will accept anonymous comments (enter “N/A” in the required fields if you wish to remain anonymous). Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

This proposed rule is accessible via the Internet at the Office of the Federal Register Web site at https://www.federalregister.gov. Background information and documents are available at the NMFS West Coast Region Web site at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/fisheries/management/whiting/pacific_whiting.html and at the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Web site at http://www.pcouncil.org/.

Background

The regulations at 50 CFR 660.50(d) establish the process by which the tribes with treaty fishing rights in the area covered by the FMP request new allocations or regulations specific to the tribes, in writing, during the biennial harvest specifications and management measures process. The regulations state that “the Secretary will develop tribal allocations and regulations under this paragraph in consultation with the affected tribe(s) and, insofar as possible, with tribal consensus.” The procedures NOAA employs in implementing tribal treaty rights under the FMP, in place since May 31, 1996, were designed to provide a framework process by which NOAA Fisheries can accommodate tribal treaty rights by setting aside appropriate amounts of fish in conjunction with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) process for determining harvest specifications and management measures. The Council's groundfish fisheries require a high degree of coordination among the tribal, state, and federal co-managers in order to rebuild overfished species and prevent overfishing, while allowing fishermen opportunities to sustainably harvest over 90 species of groundfish managed under the FMP.

Since 1996, NMFS has been allocating a portion of the U.S. total allowable catch (TAC) (called Optimum Yield (OY) or Annual Catch Limit (ACL) prior to 2012) of Pacific whiting to the tribal fishery, following the process established in 50 CFR 660.50(d). The tribal allocation is subtracted from the U.S. Pacific whiting TAC before allocation to the non-tribal sectors.

To date, only the Makah Tribe has prosecuted a tribal fishery for Pacific whiting. The Makah Tribe has annually harvested a whiting allocation every year since 1996 using midwater trawl gear. Since 1999, the tribal allocation has been made in consideration of their participation in the fishery. In 2008 the Quileute Tribe and Quinault Indian Nation expressed an interest in commencing participation in the whiting fishery. Tribal allocations for 2009-2013 were based on discussions with all three tribes regarding their intent for those fishing years. The table below provides a history of U.S. OYs/ACLs and the annual tribal allocation in metric tons (mt).

For the past five years, NMFS and the co-managers, including the States of Washington and Oregon, as well as the Treaty tribes, have been involved in a process designed to determine the long-term tribal allocation for Pacific whiting. In 2009, NMFS shared a preliminary report summarizing scientific information available on the migration and distribution of Pacific whiting on the west coast. The co-managers met in 2009 and discussed this preliminary information.

In 2010, NMFS finalized the report summarizing scientific information available on the migration and distribution of Pacific whiting on the West Coast. In addition, NMFS responded in writing to requests from the tribes for clarification on the paper and requests for additional information. NMFS also met with each of the tribes in the fall of 2010 to discuss the report and to discuss a process for negotiation of the long-term tribal allocation of Pacific whiting.

In 2011, NMFS again met individually with the Makah, Quileute, and Quinault tribes to discuss these matters. Due to the detailed nature of the evaluation of the scientific information, and the need to negotiate a long-term tribal allocation following completion of the evaluation, the process continued in 2012. No additional meetings were held on these matters in 2013. The 2014 tribal allocation of Pacific whiting will not reflect a negotiated long-term tribal allocation. Instead, it is an interim allocation not intended to set precedent for future allocations.

Tribal Allocation for 2014

In exchanges between NMFS and the tribes during November and December of 2013, the Makah tribe indicated their intent to participate in the tribal whiting fishery in 2014. The Makah tribe has requested 17.5% of the U.S. TAC. The Quileute tribe and the Quinault Indian Nation indicated that they are not planning to participate in 2014. The Hoh tribe has not expressed an interest in participating to date. NMFS proposes a tribal allocation that accommodates the Makah request, specifically 17.5% of the U.S. TAC. NMFS believes that the current scientific information regarding the distribution and abundance of the coastal Pacific whiting stock suggests that the 17.5% is within the range of the tribal treaty right to Pacific whiting.

NMFS cannot at this time propose a specific amount for the tribal allocation because this amount depends on the amount of the U.S. TAC of whiting, which will not be determined until late March. Because the whiting fishery typically begins in May, the final rule establishing the whiting specifications for 2014 must be published by early April. Therefore, in order to provide for public input on the tribal allocation, NMFS is issuing this proposed rule without knowledge of the 2014 TAC. However, to provide a basis for public input, NMFS is describing a range of potential tribal allocations in this proposed rule, applying the proposed approach to determining the tribal allocation to a range of potential TACs derived from historical experience. The Joint Management Committee (JMC), which was established pursuant to the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada on Pacific Hake/Whiting (the Agreement), is anticipated to recommend the coastwide and corresponding U.S./Canada TACs no later than March 25, 2014. The U.S. TAC is 73.88% of the coastwide TAC.

As mentioned above, NMFS is applying its proposed approach to determining the tribal allocation to the range of U.S. TACs over the last ten years, 2004 through 2013 (plus or minus 25% to capture variability in stock abundance) in order to project a range of potential tribal allocations for 2014. The range of TACs is 135,939 mt (2009) to 290,903 mt (2011). Applying the 25% variability results in a range of potential TACs from 101,954 mt to 363,629 mt for 2014.

Application of the 17.5% requested by the Makah Tribe to the above modified range of U.S. TACs over the last ten years results in a tribal allocation of between 17,842 and 67,271 mt for 2014.

As described earlier, NOAA Fisheries proposes this rule as an interim allocation for the 2014 tribal Pacific whiting fishery. As with past allocations, this proposed rule is not intended to establish any precedent for future whiting seasons or for the long-term tribal allocation of whiting.

The rule would be implemented under authority of Section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which gives the Secretary responsibility to “carry out any fishery management plan or amendment approved or prepared by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.” With this proposed rule, NMFS, acting on behalf of the Secretary, would ensure that the FMP is implemented in a manner consistent with treaty rights of four Northwest tribes to fish in their “usual and accustomed grounds and stations” in common with non-tribal citizens. United States v. Washington, 384 F. Supp. 313 (W.D. 1974).

Classification

NMFS has preliminarily determined that the management measures for the 2014 Pacific whiting tribal fishery are consistent with the national standards of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. In making the final determination, NMFS will take into account the data, views, and comments received during the comment period.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this proposed rule is not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.

An IRFA was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A summary of the analysis follows. A copy of this analysis is available from NMFS and is published on the NMFS Web site under Groundfish Management (see ADDRESSES).

This proposed rule would allocate 17.5 percent of the U.S. Total Allowable Catch of Pacific whiting for 2014 to Pacific Coast Indian tribes that have a Treaty right to harvest groundfish. The entities that this rule impacts are catcher vessels in the tribal fishery, and the following in the non-tribal fishery: Catcher vessels delivering to shoreside facilities; catcher vessels delivering to mothership vessels at sea; and catcher/processor vessels.

Under the RFA, the term “small entities” includes small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions. The Small Business Administration has established size criteria for all different industry sectors in the US, including fish harvesting and fish processing businesses. On June 20, 2013, the SBA issued a final rule revising the small business size standards for several industries effective July 22, 2013 (78 FR 37398; June 20, 2013). This change affects the classification of vessels that harvest groundfish under this program. The rule increased the size standard for Finfish Fishing from $4.0 to 19.0 million, Shellfish Fishing from $4.0 to 5.0 million, and Other Marine Fishing from $4.0 to 7.0 million (Id. at 37400—Table 1). Prior to SBA's recent changes to the size standards for commercial harvesters, a business involved in both the harvesting and processing of seafood products, also referred to as a catcher/processor (C/P), was considered a small business if it met the $4.0 million criterion for commercial fish harvesting operations. Prior NMFS policy was to apply the $4 million Finfish Harvest standard to C/Ps. For purposes of this proposed rulemaking, NMFS is applying the $19 million standard because whiting C/Ps are involved in the commercial harvest of finfish. The size standards for entities that process were not changed. A seafood processor is a small business if it is independently owned and operated, not dominant in its field of operation, and employs 500 or fewer persons on a full time, part time, temporary, or other basis, at all its affiliated operations worldwide.

This rule proposes to allocate fish to tribal harvesters. There are four tribes that can participate in the tribal whiting fishery: The Hoh, Makah, Quileute, and Quinault. The current tribal fleet is composed of 5 trawlers that either deliver to a shoreside plant or to a contracted mothership. Based on groundfish ex-vessel revenues and on tribal enrollments (the population size of each tribe), the four tribes and their fleets are considered “small” entities.

The Shorebased IFQ Program is composed of 138 Quota Share permits/accounts, 136 vessel accounts, and 42 first receivers. The MS Coop fishery is currently composed of a single coop, with six mothership processor permits, and 36 Mothership/Catcher-Vessel (MS/CV) endorsed permits, with one permit having two catch history assignments endorsed to it. The C/P Coop Program is composed of 10 C/P permits owned by three companies.

Although there are three non-tribal sectors, many companies participate in two or more of these sectors. All mothership catcher-vessel participants participate in the shorebased IFQ sector, while two of the three catcher-processor companies also participate in both the shorebased IFQ sector and in the MS sector. Many companies own several QS accounts. After accounting for cross participation, multiple QS account holders, and for affiliation through ownership, there are 95 entities directly affected by these proposed regulations, 82 of which are considered to be “small” businesses.

For the years 2008 to 2012, the total whiting fishery (tribal and non-tribal) has averaged harvests of 186,000 mt annually, worth $40 million in terms of ex-vessel revenues. As the U.S. TAC has been highly variable during this time, so have harvests. During this period, harvests have ranged from 121,000 mt (2009) to 248,000 mt (2008). In 2012, the harvest was approximately 160,000 mt. Ex-vessel revenues have also varied. Annual ex-vessel revenues have ranged from $14 million (2009) to $58 million (2008). Ex-vessel revenues in 2012 were about $47 million, with an average shorebased ex-vessel price of $295 per mt. Total whiting harvest in 2013 was approximately 233,000 mt worth $61 million, at an ex-vessel price of $262 per mt. The prices for whiting are largely determined by the world market for groundfish, because most of the whiting harvested is exported. Note that the use of ex-vessel values does not take into account the wholesale or export value of the fishery or the costs of harvesting and processing whiting into a finished product. NMFS does not have sufficient information to make a complete assessment of these values.

The Pacific whiting fishery harvests almost exclusively Pacific whiting. While bycatch of other species occurs, the fishery is constrained by bycatch limits on key overfished species. This is a high-volume fishery with low ex-vessel prices per pound. This fishery also has seasonal aspects based on the distribution of whiting off the west coast.

Since 1996, there has been a tribal allocation of the U.S. whiting TAC. Tribal fisheries undertake a mixture of fishing activities that are similar to the activities that non-tribal fisheries undertake. Tribal harvests are delivered to both shoreside plants and motherships for processing. These processing facilities also process fish harvested by non-tribal fisheries.

This proposed rule would allocate 17.5 percent of Pacific whiting to the tribal fishery, and would ultimately determine how much is left for allocation to the non-tribal sectors, which are the Shorebased IFQ Program—Trawl Fishery; Mothership Coop (MS) Program—Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery; and C/P Coop Program—Whiting At-sea Trawl Fishery. The amount of whiting allocated to both the tribal and non-tribal sectors is based on the U.S. TAC. From the U.S. TAC, small amounts of whiting that account for research catch and for bycatch in other fisheries are deducted. The amount of the tribal allocation is also deducted directly from the TAC. After accounting for these deductions, the remainder is the commercial harvest guideline. This guideline is then allocated among the other three sectors as follows: 34 percent for the C/P Coop Program; 24 percent for the MS Coop Program; and 42 percent for the Shorebased IFQ Program.

The effect of the tribal allocation on non-tribal fisheries will depend on the level of tribal harvests relative to their allocation and the reapportioning process. Total whiting harvest in 2013 was approximately 233,000 mt worth $61 million, at an ex-vessel price of $262 per mt. Assuming a similar harvest level and ex-vessel price in 2014, if the tribe were to harvest 17.5%, the approximate value of that harvest would be $10.7 million. If the tribes do not harvest their entire allocation, there are opportunities during the year to reapportion unharvested tribal amounts to the non-tribal fleets. For example, last year, NMFS did such a reapportionment. On, September 18, 2013, NMFS announced: “The best available information on September 16, 2013, indicates that at least 30,000 mt of the tribal allocation of 63,205 mt for the 2013 tribal Pacific whiting fishery will not be used by December 31, 2013. Recent conversations with tribal fishery managers indicate that reapportioning 30,000 mt, leaving a tribal allocation of 33,205 mt, will not limit tribal harvest opportunities for the remainder of year. Tribal harvests to date amount to approximately 3,000 mt.”

NMFS considered two alternatives for this action: The “No-Action” vs. the “Proposed Action.” NMFS did not consider a broader range of alternatives to the proposed allocation. The tribal allocation is based primarily on the requests of the tribes. These requests reflect the level of participation in the fishery that will allow them to exercise their treaty right to fish for whiting. Under the Proposed Action alternative, NMFS proposes to set the tribal allocation percentage at 17.5%, as requested by the tribes. This would yield a tribal allocation of between 17,842 and 67,271 mt for 2014. Consideration of a percentage lower than the tribal request of 17.5% is not appropriate in this instance. As a matter of policy, NMFS has historically supported the harvest levels requested by the tribes. Based on the information available to NMFS, the tribal request is within their tribal treaty rights. A higher percentage would, arguably, also be within the scope of the treaty right. However, a higher percentage would unnecessarily limit the non-tribal fishery.

A no-action alternative was considered, but the regulatory framework provides for a tribal allocation on an annual basis only. Therefore, no action would result in no allocation of Pacific whiting to the tribal sector in 2014, which would be inconsistent with NMFS' responsibility to manage the fishery consistent with the tribes' treaty rights. Given that there is a tribal request for allocation in 2014, this alternative received no further consideration.

NMFS believes this proposed rule would not adversely affect small entities. This reapportioning process allows unharvested tribal allocations of whiting, fished by small entities, to be fished by the non-tribal fleets, benefitting both large and small entities. Nonetheless, NMFS has prepared this IRFA and is requesting comments on this conclusion. See ADDRESSES.

There are no reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements in the proposed rule.

No Federal rules have been identified that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this action.

NMFS issued a Supplemental Biological Opinion on March 11, 2006, concluding that neither the higher observed bycatch of Chinook in the 2005 whiting fishery nor new data regarding salmon bycatch in the groundfish bottom trawl fishery required a reconsideration of its prior “no jeopardy” conclusion. NMFS also reaffirmed its prior determination that implementation of the Groundfish PCGFMP is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the affected ESUs. Lower Columbia River coho (70 FR 37160, June 28, 2005) and Oregon Coastal coho (73 FR 7816, February 11, 2008) were recently relisted as threatened under the ESA. The 1999 biological opinion concluded that the bycatch of salmonids in the Pacific whiting fishery were almost entirely Chinook salmon, with little or no bycatch of coho, chum, sockeye, and steelhead.

On December 7, 2012, NMFS completed a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery is not likely to jeopardize non-salmonid marine species including listed eulachon, green sturgeon, humpback whales, Steller sea lions, and leatherback sea turtles. The opinion also concludes that the fishery is not likely to adversely modify critical habitat for green sturgeon and leatherback sea turtles. An analysis included in the same document as the opinion concludes that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect green sea turtles, olive ridley sea turtles, loggerhead sea turtles, sei whales, North Pacific right whales, blue whales, fin whales, sperm whales, Southern Resident killer whales, Guadalupe fur seals, or the critical habitat for Steller sea lions.

Steller sea lions and humpback whales are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). Impacts resulting from fishing activities proposed in this rule are discussed in the FEIS for the 2013-2014 groundfish fishery specifications and management measures. West coast pot fisheries for sablefish are considered Category II fisheries under the MMPA's List of Fisheries, indicating occasional interactions. All other west coast groundfish fisheries, including the trawl fishery, are considered Category III fisheries under the MMPA, indicating a remote likelihood of or no known serious injuries or mortalities to marine mammals. MMPA section 101(a)(5)(E) requires that NMFS authorize the taking of ESA-listed marine mammals incidental to U.S. commercial fisheries if it makes the requisite findings, including a finding that the incidental mortality and serious injury from commercial fisheries will have negligible impact on the affected species or stock. As noted above, NMFS concluded in its biological opinion for the groundfish fisheries that these fisheries were not likely to jeopardize Steller sea lions or humpback whales. The eastern distinct population segment of Steller sea lions was delisted under the ESA on November 4, 2013 (78 FR 66140). On September 4, 2013, based on its negligible impact determination dated August 28, 2013, NMFS issued a permit for three years to authorize the incidental taking of humpback whales by the sablefish pot fishery (78 FR 54553).

On November 21, 2012, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a biological opinion concluding that the groundfish fishery will not jeopardize the continued existence of the short-tailed albatross. The FWS also concurred that the fishery is not likely to adversely affect the marbled murrelet, California least tern, southern sea otter, bull trout, nor bull trout critical habitat.

Pursuant to Executive Order 13175, this proposed rule was developed after meaningful consultation and collaboration with tribal officials from the area covered by the FMP. Consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act at 16 U.S.C. 1852(b)(5), one of the voting members of the Pacific Council is a representative of an Indian tribe with federally recognized fishing rights from the area of the Council's jurisdiction. In addition, NMFS has coordinated specifically with the tribes interested in the whiting fishery regarding the issues addressed by this rule.

The Department of Agriculture will submit the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13 on or after the date of publication of this notice. Comments regarding (a) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology should be addressed to: Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC; New Executive Office Building, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Commenters are encouraged to submit their comments to OMB via email to: OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax (202) 395-5806 and to Departmental Clearance Office, USDA, OCIO, Mail Stop 7602, Washington, DC 20250-7602.

Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by March 31, 2014. Copies of the submission(s) may be obtained by calling (202) 720-8681.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

Agricultural Marketing Service

Title: Vegetable and Specialty Crops.

OMB Control Number: 0581-0178.

Summary of Collection: The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (7 U.S.C. 601-674; Act) was designed to permit regulation of certain agricultural commodities for the purpose of providing orderly marketing conditions in interstate commerce and improving returns to growers. The Orders and Agreements become effective only after public hearings are held in accordance with formal rulemaking procedures specified by the Act. The vegetable, and specialty crops marketing order programs provide an opportunity for producers in specified production areas to work together to solve marketing problems that cannot be solved individually.

Need and Use of the Information: Various forms are used to collect information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the Act and the Order/Agreement. Orders and Agreements can authorize the issuance of grade, size, quality, maturity, inspection requirements, pack and container requirements, and pooling and volume regulations. Information collected is used to formulate market policy, track current inventory and statistical data for market development programs, ensure compliance, and verify eligibility, monitor and record grower's information. If this information were not collected, it would eliminate data needed to keep the industry and the Secretary abreast of changes at the State and local level.

Description of Respondents: Business or other for profit; Farms; Individuals or households.

Summary of Collection: Industries enter into a marketing order program under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act (AMAA) of 1937, as amended by U.S.C. 601-674. Marketing Order programs provide an opportunity for producers of fresh fruit, vegetables, and specialty crops, in specified production areas, to work together to solve marketing problems that cannot be solved individually. In 2002, section 501 of the FAIR Act was amended (7 U.S.C. 7401) to exempt any person that produces and markets solely 100 percent organic products, and that does not produce any conventional or non-organic products, from paying assessments under a commodity promotion law with respect to any agricultural commodity that is produced on a certified organic farm as defined in section 2103 of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.

Need and Use of the Information: The information collected on form FV-649, is necessary to assist the applicants in making their certifications and the committees or boards to determine an applicant's eligibility, to properly administer the assessment exemption and to verify compliance.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget, for an extension without change of a currently approved information collection titled Data Collection for Container Availability.

DATES:

Comments on this notice must be received by April 29, 2014 to be assured of consideration.

Type of Request: Extension without change of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1621-1627) directs and authorizes the collection and dissemination of marketing information including adequate outlook information, on a market area basis, for the purpose of anticipating and meeting consumer requirements aiding in the maintenance of farm income and to bring about a balance between production and utilization.

As part of the Agricultural Marketing Service, the Transportation Services Division (TSD) provides insightful agricultural transportation information and analysis to help move agricultural products to market. TSD informs, represents, and assists agricultural shippers and government policymakers through: Market reports, representation, analysis, assistance, and responses to inquiries. TSD collects data for its analysis from public resources as well as unique data sources to help the agricultural exporters make the most out of the transportation options available.

The Data Collection for Container Availability provides U.S. agricultural exporters with weekly data detailing the availability of containers at 18 select locations around the country. AMS collects these data on a voluntary basis from ocean container carriers and then provides these up-to-date data in an aggregate report on its Web site. The goal of the report is to provide more transparency in the market for the location and availability of marine shipping containers for U.S. exporters. Exporters use this tool to make more knowledgeable decisions about which locations provide the best chance for finding available containers to move their products overseas.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1.61 hours per response.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to April Taylor, Transportation Services Division, Transportation and Marketing Program, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave. SW.—Rm 4534 South, Stop 0266, Washington, DC 20250, telephone 202-295-7374, fax 202-690-2451. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours at the same address.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

The Ochoco National Forest is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the effects of changing grazing management in four grazing allotments on the Ochoco National Forest. These four allotments are Bear Creek, Elkhorn, Snowshoe, and Trout Creek. The proposed action would reauthorize term grazing permits, make rangeland improvements, manage livestock use and distribution to facilitate the improvement of riparian conditions, including streambank stability, riparian vegetation, and water temperature, and would conduct riparian restoration activities on some streams in the project area. These actions are needed to achieve and maintain consistency with the Ochoco National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended.

DATES:

Comments concerning the scope of the analysis must be received by March 31, 2014. The draft environmental impact statement is expected to be completed and available for public comment in January, 2015. The final environmental impact statement is expected to be completed in May, 2015.

ADDRESSES:

Send written comments to Slater Turner, District Ranger, Lookout Mountain District, Ochoco National Forest, 3160 NE Third Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754. Alternately, electronic comments may be sent to comments-pacificnorthwest-ochoco@fs.fed.us. Electronic comments must be submitted as part of the actual email message, or as an attachment in plain text (.txt), Microsoft Word (.doc), rich text format (.rtf), or portable document format (.pdf).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tory Kurtz, Project Leader, at 3160 NE Third Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754, or at (541) 416-6407, or by email at tlkurtz@fs.fed.us.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of this proposal is to reauthorize livestock grazing consistent with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Based on surveys, conditions on some streams in the project area are not consistent with desired condition; there is a need to make range improvements and change livestock management to move towards desired conditions for stream shade, bank stability and width-to-depth ratio. Livestock grazing is one of the factors that can contribute to altered riparian function. Active riparian restoration activities will facilitate the achievement of the desired condition.

Proposed Action

The proposed action includes a variety of pasture-specific management strategies and activities, including active management of livestock, relocation or reconstruction of existing water developments, planting of riparian hardwoods, placing logs and rocks in and along stream channels, and protection of riparian vegetation and streambanks.

Bear Creek Allotment

• The allotment would continue to consist of 11,158 acres divided between three pastures: North Bear, South Bear and Dodd's.

• Either cattle or sheep grazing would be authorized, as follows:

○ The current permitted amount of 685 AUMs with 132 cow/calf pair from June 5 to September 30 would be authorized;

○ OR ewe/lamb livestock kind may be used instead of cow/calf pair; a permitted amount of 1,298 AUMs with 1,100 ewe/lamb pairs from June 5 to September 30 would be authorized.

• Existing structural improvements would be reauthorized including 16 troughs, 8 reservoirs and approximately 21 miles of fence.

• Approximately 12 miles of fence would be reauthorized; (interior fence lines would not be required with ewe/lamb pairs since there is a herder).

• The grazing system for cattle would be a three pasture rotation, deferring North Bear and South Bear pastures each year and utilizing Dodd's pasture last each year.

• Active management of livestock would be required for cattle.

• The grazing system for ewe/lamb pairs would be a herded system with the following rules:

○ Sheep would not be grazed within a minimum of 1/4 mile of anadromous fish-bearing streams prior to July 15th.

○ Siesta or bedding places would be far from open roads, streams, new plantations, aspen stands, heritage sites and prairies, and would not be located in riparian areas or scablands.

○ The sheep would not take siesta or bedding at the same place more than once per grazing season.

○ Salt and supplements would be placed in portable containers, on rocks, sawed tree trunks and fallen tree trunks, and would be located away from roads and generally 1/4 mile away from Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and scablands.

○ Streams containing anadromous fish habitat would not be used prior to July 15th; off-source water including water brought in by truck would be used prior to July 15th.

○ Drafting for water would not occur in streams that are occupied by steelhead.

• Aspen stands identified in the field would be protected and enhanced through conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials, prescribed fire, and mechanical treatment. Exclosures may be used when thinning and placement of thinned materials to protect aspens stands is not found to provide adequate protection.

Elkhorn Allotment

• The allotment would continue to consist of 9,620 acres divided between four pastures: Bridge Creek, Elkhorn, Indian Prairie and Val Trail.

• The current permitted amount of 1,378 AUMs with 290 cow/calf pair from June 15 to September 30 would be authorized.

• Existing structural improvements would be reauthorized including 30 troughs and approximately 18 miles of fence.

• The grazing system would be a three pasture rotation using Elkhorn first to decrease the spread of Cynoglossum officinale (houndstongue) infestations, Val Trail pasture and utilizing Bridge Creek pasture last each year. Indian Prairie pasture would be used as needed for gathering and holding.

• Active management of livestock would be required.

• Trailing routes and anticipated crossings between pastures would be identified for Cynoglossum officinale (houndstongue) infestations and other listed non-native invasive plants and routes and crossings would either be avoided, relocated or be a priority for treatment.

• Aspen stands identified in the field would be protected and enhanced through conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials, prescribed fire, and mechanical treatment. Exclosures may be used when thinning and placement of thinned materials to protect aspens stands is not found to provide adequate protection.

Snowshoe Allotment

• The allotment would continue to consist of 2,711 acres divided between two pastures: North Nature Creek and Snowshoe.

• The current permitted amount of 343 AUMs with 156 cow/calf pair from August 12 to September 30 would be authorized.

• Existing structural improvements would be reauthorized including 10 troughs and approx. 9.25 miles of fence.

• The grazing system would be a two pasture rotation deferring Snowshoe pasture each year until after July 15th at the earliest.

• Active management of livestock would be required.

• Trailing routes and anticipated crossings between pastures would be identified for Cynoglossum officinale (houndstongue) infestations and other listed non-native invasive plants and routes and crossings would either be avoided, relocated or be a priority for treatment.

• Existing aspen stands identified in the field would be protected and enhanced through conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials, prescribed fire, and mechanical treatment. Exclosures may be used when thinning and placement of thinned materials to protect aspens stands is not found to provide adequate protection.

Trout Creek Allotment

• The allotment would consist of 21,370 acres.

• The current permitted amount of 1,797 AUMs with 1,953 ewe/lamb pairs from June 16 to September 15 would be authorized.

• Existing structural improvements would be reauthorized including 22 troughs, 5 ponds, and approx. 20 miles of fence.

• The grazing system for ewe/lamb pairs would be a herded system with the following rules:

○ Sheep would not be grazed within a minimum of 1/4 mile of anadromous fish-bearing streams prior to July 15th.

○ Siesta or bedding places would be far from open roads, streams, new plantations, aspen stands, heritage sites and prairies, and would not be located in riparian areas or scablands.

○ The sheep would not take siesta or bedding at the same place more than once per grazing season.

○ Salt and supplements would be placed in portable containers, on rocks, sawed tree trunks and fallen tree trunks, and would be located away from roads and generally 1/4 mile away from Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) and scablands.

○ Streams containing anadromous fish habitat would not be used prior to July 15th; off-source water including water brought in by truck would be used prior to July 15th.

○ Drafting for water would not occur in streams that are occupied by steelhead.

• Twenty-five water developments would be reconstructed and associated springs would be protected as needed.

• Two water developments would be removed and their sites restored to a natural state.

• Existing aspen stands identified in the field would be protected and enhanced through conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials, prescribed fire, and mechanical treatment. Exclosures may be used when thinning and placement of thinned materials to protect aspens stands is not found to provide adequate protection.

• Juniper up to 12″ diameter would be mechanically thinned and/or thinned by prescribed fire.

• An approximately 2-acre aspen stand would be enhanced and protected through conifer thinning and utilization of thinned materials, prescribed fire and mechanical treatment. Exclosures may be used when thinning and placement of thinned materials to protect aspens stands is not found to provide adequate protection.

• Bedding/camping areas would be monitored for known Taeniatherum caput-medusae (medusahead) populations. Trailing routes onto the allotment would be identified for listed non-native invasive plants.

• Riparian restoration activities would take place where necessary on 4.5 miles of Little McKay Creek and tributaries; activities would include in-stream placement of wood and/or rock structures, filling and connecting floodplains, planting hardwoods, and creating physical barriers (such as wood, rock or fences) to protect hardwoods and improve bank stability, conifer thinning to improve RHCA stand conditions and utilization of thinning materials for in-stream placement and improved bank stability. Wood and physical barrier material may come from on-site.

• An alternative grazing plan would be included to have two total grazing plans that can be alternated.

Possible Alternatives

In addition to the Proposed Action and any alternative that is developed following this scoping effort, the project interdisciplinary team will analyze the effects of:

• No Action alternative: No grazing permits would be reauthorized; cattle would be removed from all allotments within two years.

• Current management alternative: Permits would be reauthorized at current levels; there would be no new water developments, no riparian restoration, and there would be no requirement for permittees to move livestock out of sensitive areas, except as required by current permits.

Responsible Official

The responsible official will be District Ranger, Lookout Mountain Ranger District, Ochoco National Forest, 3160 NE Third Street, Prineville, Oregon 97754.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

Given the purpose and need, the deciding official will review the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions:

• Whether and under what circumstances grazing will be reauthorized in the Bear Creek, Elkhorn, Snowshoe, and Trout Creek allotments.

• Whether and under what circumstances range improvements will be constructed.

• Whether and under what circumstances riparian restoration activities will be implemented.

Preliminary Issues

Preliminary issues identified include the potential effect of the proposed action on livestock grazing, heritage resources, fisheries, water quality, sensitive plants, and on the introduction and/or spread of invasive plants, as well as the cumulative effects of the proposed action where the effects of associated activities overlap with the effects of other management activities.

Scoping Process

Public comments about this proposal are requested in order to assist in identifying issues, determining how to best manage the resources, and focusing the analysis. Comments received to this notice, including names and addresses of those who comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the Agency with the ability to provide the respondent with subsequent environmental documents.

The GMUG Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Delta, Colorado. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with the title II of the Act. The meeting is open to the public. The purpose of the meeting is to review past and current project proposals to recommend for funding and implementation under the Secure Rural Schools, Title II disbursements.

DATES:

The meeting will be held April 8, 2014 at 1:00 to 4:00 p.m.

All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at 2250 Highway 50, Delta, Colorado at the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre & Gunnison National Forests Forest Headquarters in the North Spruce conference room.

Written comments may be submitted as described under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Forest Headquarters Office at 2250 Highway 50, Delta, Colorado. Please call ahead to facilitate entry into the building.

Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreting, assistive listening devices or other reasonable accommodation for access to the facility or procedings by contacting the person listed FOR FURTHER INFORMATION.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional RAC information, including the meeting agenda and the meeting summary/minutes can be found at the following Web site: www.facadatabase.gov. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by March 25 to be scheduled on the agenda.

Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Lee Ann Loupe, GMUG RAC Coordinator, 2250 Highway 50 Delta, CO 81416; or by email to lloupe@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to C/O Lee Ann Loupe 970-874-6686.

The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

Type of Request: Regular submission (extension of a current collection).

Burden Hours: 1,875.

Number of Respondents: 30.

Average Hours per Response: 62 hours and 30 minutes.

Needs and Uses: BEES Please is a voluntary program to collect data from product manufacturers so that the environmental performance of their products may be evaluated scientifically using the BEES software. These data include product-specific materials use, energy consumption, waste, and environmental releases. BEES evaluates these data, translates them into decision-enabling results, and delivers them in a visually intuitive graphical format.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.

Frequency: On Occasion.

Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.

This information collection request may be viewed at reginfo.gov. Follow the instructions to review Department of Commerce collections under review.

Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or fax no. (202) 395-5806.

By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled BE-15, Annual Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States. This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. A completed report covering a reporting company's fiscal year ending during the previous calendar year is due by May 31 (or by June 30 for reporting companies that use BEA's eFile system). This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. Additional information about BEA's collection of data on international trade in services and direct investment can be found in the 2012 rule and the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101 et. seq.). The BE-15 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/fdi.

Definitions

(a) United States, when used in a geographic sense, means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all territories and possessions of the United States.

(b) Foreign, when used in a geographic sense, means that which is situated outside the United States or which belongs to or is characteristic of a country other than the United States.

(c) Person means any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any government (including a foreign government, the United States Government, a State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a government-sponsored agency).

(d) Business enterprise means any organization, association, branch, or venture that exists for profit making purposes or to otherwise secure economic advantage, and any ownership of any real estate.

Who Must Report

(a) Reports are required from each U.S. business enterprise in which a foreign person has a direct and/or indirect ownership interest of at least 10 percent of the voting stock if an incorporated business enterprise, or an equivalent interest if an unincorporated business enterprise, and that meets the additional conditions detailed in Form BE-15.

(b) Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.

What To Report: The survey collects information on the operations of U.S. affiliates of foreign companies.

How To Report: Reports can be filed using BEA's electronic reporting system at www.bea.gov/efile. Copies of the survey forms and instructions, which contain complete information on reporting procedures and definitions, may be obtained at the BEA Web site given above. Form BE-15 inquiries can be made by phone to (202) 606-5615 or by sending an email to be12/15@bea.gov.

When To Report: A completed report covering a reporting company's fiscal year ending during the previous calendar year is due by May 31 (or by June 30 for reporting companies that use BEA's eFile system).

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: This data collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned control number 0608-0034. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 19.5 hours per response. Send comments regarding this burden estimate to Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0034, Washington, DC 20503.

By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled BE-11, Annual Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad. This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. A completed report covering a reporting company's fiscal year ending during the previous calendar year is due by May 31. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. Additional information about BEA's collection of data on international trade in services and direct investment can be found in the 2012 rule and the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101 et. seq.). The BE-11 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/dia.

Definitions

(a) United States, when used in a geographic sense, means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all territories and possessions of the United States.

(b) Foreign, when used in a geographic sense, means that which is situated outside the United States or which belongs to or is characteristic of a country other than the United States.

(c) Person means any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any government (including a foreign government, the United States Government, a State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a government-sponsored agency).

(d) Business enterprise means any organization, association, branch, or venture that exists for profit making purposes or to otherwise secure economic advantage, and any ownership of any real estate.

Who Must Report

(a) Reports are required from each U.S. person that has a direct and/or indirect ownership interest of at least 10 percent of the voting stock in an incorporated foreign business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business enterprise and that meets the additional conditions detailed in Form BE-11.

(b) Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.

What To Report: The survey collects information on the operations of U.S. parent companies and their foreign affiliates.

How To Report: Reports can be filed using BEA's electronic reporting system at www.bea.gov/efile. Copies of the survey forms and instructions, which contain complete information on reporting procedures and definitions, may be obtained at the BEA Web site given above. Form BE-15 inquiries can be made by phone to (202) 606-5566 or by sending an email to be10/11@bea.gov.

When To Report: A completed report covering a reporting company's fiscal year ending during the previous calendar year is due by May 31.

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: This data collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned control number 0608-0053. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 91 hours per response. Send comments regarding this burden estimate to Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0053, Washington, DC 20503.

By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled Quarterly Survey of Financial Services Transactions between U.S. Financial Services Providers and Foreign Persons (BE-185). This mandatory survey is conducted under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act and by Section 5408 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 45 days after the end of the U.S. person's fiscal quarter, except for the final quarter of the U.S. person's fiscal year when reports must be filed within 90 days. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. The BE-125 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/surveys/iussurv.htm.

Definitions

(a) Person means any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any government (including a foreign government, the United States Government, a State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a government-sponsored agency).

(b) United States person means any person resident in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(c) Foreign person means any person resident outside the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of a country other than the United States.

Who Must Report: Reports are required from each U.S. person who: (a) Had sales of covered financial services to foreign persons that exceeded $20 million for the previous fiscal year or are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year, or (b) had purchases of covered financial services from foreign persons that exceeded $15 million for the previous fiscal year or are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year. Because the thresholds are applied separately to sales and purchases, the reporting requirements may apply only to sales, only to purchases, or to both sales and purchases. Entities required to report will be contacted individually by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.

What To Report: The survey is intended to collect information on transactions in the covered financial services between U.S. financial services providers and foreign persons. The survey is intended to collect information on transactions in the covered services occurring in the last quarter of calendar year 2013 and in the first three quarters of calendar year 2014.

How To Report: Reports can be filed via BEA's electronic reporting system at www.bea.gov/efile. Additionally, copies of the survey forms and instructions, which contain complete information on reporting procedures and definitions, can be obtained from the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/surveys/iussurv.htm. Inquiries can be made to BEA at (202) 606-5588.

When To Report: Reports are due to BEA 45 days after the end of the fiscal quarter, except for the final quarter of the reporter's fiscal year when reports must be filed within 90 days.

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: This data collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned control number 0608-0065. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The estimated average annual public reporting burden for this collection of information is 10 hours per response. Send comments for this burden estimate to Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0065, Washington, DC 20503.

By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled Quarterly Survey of Foreign Airline Operators' Revenues and Expenses in the United States (BE-9). This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. The BE-9 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/surveys/iussurv.htm.

Definitions

(a) Person means any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any government (including a foreign government, the United States Government, a State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a government-sponsored agency).

(b) United States person means any person resident in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. United States, when used in a geographic sense, means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all territories and possessions of the United States.

(c) Foreign person means any person resident outside the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of a country other than the United States.

Who Must Report: Reports are required from U.S. offices, agents, or other representatives of foreign airline operators that transport passengers or freight and express to or from the United States and whose total covered revenues or total covered expenses: (a) were $5,000,000 or more during the previous year or are (b) expected to be $5,000,000 or more during the current year. Because the thresholds are applied separately to sales and purchases, the reporting requirements may apply only to sales, only to purchases, or to both sales and purchases. Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.

What To Report: The survey is intended to collect information on foreign airline operators' revenues and expenses in the United States. The survey is intended to collect information on transactions occurring in the covered services in the last quarter of calendar year 2013 and in the first three quarters of calendar year 2014.

How To Report: Reports can be filed via BEA's electronic reporting system at www.bea.gov/efile. Additionally, copies of the survey forms and instructions, which contain complete information on reporting procedures and definitions, can be obtained from the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/surveys/iussurv.htm. Inquiries can be made to BEA at (202) 606-5588.

When To Report: Reports are due to BEA 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter.

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: This data collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned control number 0608-0068. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The estimated average annual public reporting burden for this collection of information is 6 hours per response. Send comments regarding this burden estimate to Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0068, Washington, DC 20503.

By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled BE-605, Quarterly Survey of Foreign Direct Investment in the United States—Transactions of U.S. Affiliate with Foreign Parent. This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each calendar or fiscal quarter; 45 days if the report is for the final quarter of the financial reporting year. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. Additional information about BEA's collection of data on international trade in services and direct investment can be found in the 2012 rule and the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101 et. seq.). The BE-605 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/fdi.

Definitions

(a) United States, when used in a geographic sense, means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all territories and possessions of the United States.

(b) Foreign, when used in a geographic sense, means that which is situated outside the United States or which belongs to or is characteristic of a country other than the United States.

(c) Person means any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any government (including a foreign government, the United States Government, a State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a government-sponsored agency).

(d) Business enterprise means any organization, association, branch, or venture that exists for profit making purposes or to otherwise secure economic advantage, and any ownership of any real estate.

Who Must Report

(a) Reports are required from each U.S. business enterprise in which a foreign person has a direct and/or indirect ownership interest of at least 10 percent of the voting stock if an incorporated business enterprise, or an equivalent interest if an unincorporated business enterprise, and that meets the additional conditions detailed in Form BE-605.

(b) Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.

What To Report: The survey collects information on transactions between parent companies and their affiliates and on direct investment positions (stocks).

How To Report: Reports can be filed using BEA's electronic reporting system at www.bea.gov/efile. Copies of the survey forms and instructions, which contain complete information on reporting procedures and definitions, may be obtained at the BEA Web site given above. Form BE-605 inquiries can be made by phone to (202) 606-5577 or by sending an email to be605@bea.gov.

When To Report: Reports are due to BEA 30 days after the close of each calendar or fiscal quarter; 45 days if the report is for the final quarter of the financial reporting year.

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: This data collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned control number 0608-0009. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. Send comments regarding this burden estimate to Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0009, Washington, DC 20503.

By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled Quarterly Survey of Insurance Transactions by U.S. Insurance Companies with Foreign Persons (BE-45). This mandatory survey is conducted under the authority of the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 60 days after the end of the U.S. person's fiscal quarter, except for the final quarter of the U.S. person's fiscal year when reports must be filed within 90 days. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. The BE-45 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/surveys/iussurv.htm.

Definitions

(a) Person means any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any government (including a foreign government, the United States Government, a State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a government-sponsored agency).

(b) United States person means any person resident in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(c) Foreign person means any person resident outside the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of a country other than the United States.

Who Must Report: Reports are required from U.S. persons whose covered transactions: (a) Exceeded $8 million (positive or negative) in the prior fiscal year or (b) are expected to exceed that amount during the current fiscal year. Entities required to report will be contacted individually by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.

What To Report: The survey is intended to collect information on cross-border insurance transactions between U.S. insurance companies and foreign persons. The survey is intended to collect information on transactions in the covered services occurring in the last quarter of calendar year 2013 and in the first three quarters of calendar year 2014.

How To Report: Reports can be filed via BEA's electronic reporting system at www.bea.gov/efile. Additionally, copies of the survey forms and instructions, which contain complete information on reporting procedures and definitions, can be obtained from the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/surveys/iussurv.htm. Inquiries can be made to BEA at (202) 606-5588.

When To Report: Reports are due to BEA 60 days after the end of the fiscal quarter, except

for the final quarter of the reporter's fiscal year when reports must be filed within 90 days.

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: This data collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned control number 0608-0066. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The estimated average annual public reporting burden for this collection of information is 8 hours per response. Send comments regarding this burden estimate to Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0066, Washington, DC 20503.

By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled BE-577, Quarterly Survey of U.S. Direct Investment Abroad—Transactions of U.S. Reporter with Foreign Affiliate. This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 30 days after the close of each calendar or fiscal quarter; 45 days if the report is for the final quarter of the financial reporting year. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. Additional information about BEA's collection of data on international trade in services and direct investment can be found in the 2012 rule and the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act (22 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.). The BE-577 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/dia.

Definitions

(a) United States, when used in a geographic sense, means the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and all territories and possessions of the United States.

(b) Foreign, when used in a geographic sense, means that which is situated outside the United States or which belongs to or is characteristic of a country other than the United States.

(c) Person means any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any government (including a foreign government, the United States Government, a State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a government-sponsored agency).

(d) Business enterprise means any organization, association, branch, or venture that exists for profit making purposes or to otherwise secure economic advantage, and any ownership of any real estate.

Who Must Report

(a) Reports are required from each U.S. person that has a direct and/or indirect ownership interest of at least 10 percent of the voting stock in an incorporated foreign business enterprise or an equivalent interest in an unincorporated foreign business enterprise and that meets the additional conditions detailed in Form BE-577.

(b) Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.

What To Report: The survey collects information on transactions between parent companies and their affiliates and on direct investment positions (stocks).

How To Report: Reports can be filed using BEA's electronic reporting system at www.bea.gov/efile. Copies of the survey forms and instructions, which contain complete information on reporting procedures and definitions, may be obtained at the BEA Web site given above. Form BE-577 inquiries can be made by phone to (202) 606-5557 or by sending an email to be577@bea.gov.

When To Report: Reports are due to BEA 30 days after the close of each calendar or fiscal quarter; 45 days if the report is for the final quarter of the financial reporting year.

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: This data collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned control number 0608-0004. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. Send comments regarding this burden estimate to Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0004, Washington, DC 20503.

By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce is informing the public that it is conducting the mandatory survey titled Survey of Foreign Ocean Carriers' Revenues and Expenses in the United States (BE-29). This mandatory survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 90 days after the end of each calendar year. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. The BE-29 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/surveys/iussurv.htm.

Definitions

(a) Person means any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any government (including a foreign government, the United States Government, a State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a government-sponsored agency).

(b) United States person means any person resident in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(c) Foreign person means any person resident outside the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of a country other than the United States.

(d) Carriers means owners or operators of dry cargo, passenger (including cruise and combination) and tanker vessels, including very large crude carriers (VLCCs), calling at U.S. ports.

(e) Foreign Carriers means those carriers whose residence is outside the United States, including those who own or operate their own chartered (U.S.-flag or foreign-flag) vessels. They also include foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies operating their own or chartered vessels as carriers for their own accounts.

Who Must Report: Reports are required from U.S. agents of foreign carriers who: (a) Handle 40 or more port calls in the reporting period by foreign ocean vessels, or (b) have total annual covered expenses for all foreign ocean vessels handled by the U.S. agent of $250,000 or more. Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.

What To Report: This survey is intended to collect information on foreign ocean carriers' expenses in the United States. The survey is intended to collect information on transactions in the covered services occurring in calendar year 2013.

How To Report: Reports can be filed via BEA's electronic reporting system at www.bea.gov/efile. Additionally, copies of the survey forms and instructions, which contain complete information on reporting procedures and definitions, can be obtained from the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/surveys/iussurv.htm. Inquiries can be made to BEA at (202) 606-5588.

When To Report: Reports are due to BEA 90 days after the end of each calendar year.

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: This data collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned control number 0608-0012. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The estimated average annual public reporting burden for this collection of information is 3 hours per response. Send comments regarding this burden estimate to Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0012, Washington, DC 20503.

By this Notice, the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), Department of Commerce, is informing the public that it is conducting a mandatory survey titled Survey of Ocean Freight Revenues and Foreign Expenses of United States Carriers (BE-30). This survey is authorized by the International Investment and Trade in Services Survey Act.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This Notice constitutes legal notification to all United States persons (defined below) who meet the reporting requirements set forth in this Notice that they must respond to, and comply with, the survey. Reports are due 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter. This notice is being issued in conformance with the rule BEA issued in 2012 (77 FR 24373) establishing guidelines for collecting data on international trade in services and direct investment through notices, rather than through rulemakings. The BE-30 survey forms and instructions are available on the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/surveys/iussurv.htm.

Definitions

(a) Person means any individual, branch, partnership, associated group, association, estate, trust, corporation, or other organization (whether or not organized under the laws of any State), and any government (including a foreign government, the United States Government, a State or local government, and any agency, corporation, financial institution, or other entity or instrumentality thereof, including a government-sponsored agency).

(b) United States person means any person resident in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

(c) Foreign person means any person resident outside the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of a country other than the United States.

Who Must Report: Reports are required from each U.S. person whose total covered revenues or total covered expenses: (a) Were $500,000 or more during the previous year or, (b) are expected to be $500,000 or more during the current year. Entities required to report will be contacted individually by BEA. Entities not contacted by BEA have no reporting responsibilities.

What To Report: The survey is intended to collect information on U.S. ocean freight carriers' foreign revenues and expenses. The survey is intended to collect information on transactions in the covered services occurring in the last quarter of calendar year 2013 and in the first three quarters of calendar year 2014.

How To Report: Reports can be filed via BEA's electronic reporting system at www.bea.gov/efile. Additionally, copies of the survey forms and instructions, which contain complete information on reporting procedures and definitions, can be obtained from the BEA Web site at www.bea.gov/surveys/iussurv.htm. Inquiries can be made to BEA at (202) 606-5588.

When To Report: Reports are due to BEA 45 days after the end of each calendar quarter.

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice: This data collection has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and assigned control number 0608-0011. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a valid control number assigned by OMB. The estimated average annual public reporting burden for this collection of information is 4 hours per response. Send comments regarding this burden estimate to Director, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BE-1), U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project 0608-0011, Washington, DC 20503.

Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463 as amended by Pub. L. 94-409, Pub. L. 96-523, Pub. L. 97-375 and Pub. L. 105-153), we are announcing a meeting of the Bureau of Economic Analysis Advisory Committee. The meeting will address ways in which the national economic accounts can be presented more effectively for current economic analysis and recent statistical developments in national accounting.

DATES:

Friday, May 9, 2014 the meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and adjourn at 3:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will take place at the Bureau of Economic Analysis at 1441 L St. NW., Washington, DC.

Public Participation: This meeting is open to the public. Because of security procedures, anyone planning to attend the meeting must contact Gianna Marrone of BEA at (202) 606-9633 in advance. The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for foreign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Gianna Marrone at (202) 606-9633.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Committee was established September 2, 1999. The Committee advises the Director of BEA on matters related to the development and improvement of BEA's national, regional, industry, and international economic accounts, especially in areas of new and rapidly growing economic activities arising from innovative and advancing technologies, and provides recommendations from the perspectives of the economics profession, business, and government. This will be the Committee's twenty-sixth meeting.

The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with January anniversary dates. In accordance with the Department's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.

The Department has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings with January anniversary dates.

All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by the Department discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.

Notice of No Sales

If a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the period of review (“POR”), it must notify the Department within 60 days of publication of this notice in the Federal Register. All submissions must be filed electronically at http://iaaccess.trade.gov in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303.1 Such submissions are subject to verification in accordance with section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“Act”). Further, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.303(f)(1)(i), a copy must be served on every party on the Department's service list.

In the event the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews, except for the review of the antidumping duty order on wooden bedroom furniture from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”), the Department intends to select respondents based on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) data for U.S. imports during the POR. We intend to release the CBP data under Administrative Protective Order (“APO”) to all parties having an APO within seven days of publication of this initiation notice and to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 21 days of publication of this Federal Register notice. The Department invites comments regarding the CBP data and respondent selection within five days of placement of the CBP data on the record of the applicable review.

Respondent Selection—Wooden Bedroom Furniture from the PRC

In the event that the Department limits the number of respondents for individual examination in the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, for the purposes of this segment of the proceeding, i.e., the 2013 review period, the Department intends to select respondents based on volume data contained in responses to a Q&V questionnaire. All parties are hereby notified that they must timely respond to the Q&V questionnaire. The Department's Q&V questionnaire along with the Separate Rate Application, Separate Rate Certification, and certain additional questions will be available in a document package on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/download/prc-wbf/ on the date this notice is signed. The responses to the Q&V questionnaire should be filed with the respondents' Separate Rate Application or Separate Rate Certification and their response to the additional questions and must be received by the Department by no later than 60 days after publication of this notice. Please be advised that due to the time constraints imposed by the statutory and regulatory deadlines for antidumping duty administrative reviews, the Department does not intend to grant any extensions for the submission of responses to the Q&V questionnaire.

In the event the Department decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Act:

In general, the Department has found that determinations concerning whether particular companies should be “collapsed” (i.e., treated as a single entity for purposes of calculating antidumping duty rates) require a substantial amount of detailed information and analysis, which often require follow-up questions and analysis. Accordingly, the Department will not conduct collapsing analyses at the respondent selection phase of this review and will not collapse companies at the respondent selection phase unless there has been a determination to collapse certain companies in a previous segment of this antidumping proceeding (i.e., investigation, administrative review, new shipper review or changed circumstances review). For any company subject to this review, if the Department determined, or continued to treat, that company as collapsed with others, the Department will assume that such companies continue to operate in the same manner and will collapse them for respondent selection purposes. Otherwise, the Department will not collapse companies for purposes of respondent selection. Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Quantity and Value (“Q&V”) Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where the Department considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.

Deadline for Withdrawal of Request for Administrative Review

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that the Department may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. In order to provide parties additional certainty with respect to when the Department will exercise its discretion to extend this 90-day deadline, interested parties are advised that the Department does not intend to extend the 90-day deadline unless the requestor demonstrates that an extraordinary circumstance has prevented it from submitting a timely withdrawal request. Determinations by the Department to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.

Separate Rates

In proceedings involving non-market economy (“NME”) countries, the Department begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single antidumping duty deposit rate. It is the Department's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.

To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise under a test arising from the Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 20588 (May 6, 1991), as amplified by Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 22585 (May 2, 1994). In accordance with the separate rates criteria, the Department assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both de jure and de facto government control over export activities.

All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a separate rate application or certification, as described below. In addition, all firms that wish to qualify for separate-rate status in the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC must complete, as appropriate, either a separate-rate certification or application, as described below, and respond to the additional questions and the Q&V questionnaire which are included along with the separate-rate certification and application in a document package on the Department's Web site at http://trade.gov/enforcement/news.asp. For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, the Department requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. For the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, the Separate Rate Certification form will be available at the Web site address noted above for the document package. In responding to the certification, please follow the “Instructions for Filing the Certification” in the Separate Rate Certification. Separate Rate Certifications are due to the Department no later than 60 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. For the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, Separate Rate Certifications, as well as a response to the Q&V questionnaire and the additional questions in the document package, are due to the Department no later than 60 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Certification applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers who purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment of the proceeding 2 should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. In addition, companies that received a separate rate in a completed segment of the proceeding that have subsequently made changes, including, but not limited to, changes to corporate structure, acquisitions of new companies or facilities, or changes to their official company name 3, should timely file a Separate Rate Application to demonstrate eligibility for a separate rate in this proceeding. The Separate Rate Status Application will be available on the Department's Web site at http://enforcement.trade.gov/nme/nme-sep-rate.html on the date of publication of this Federal Register notice. For the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, the Separate Rate Status Application will be available at the Web site address noted above for the document package. In responding to the Separate Rate Status Application, refer to the instructions contained in the application. Separate Rate Status Applications are due to the Department no later than 60 calendar days of publication of this Federal Register notice. For the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC, Separate Rate Status Applications, as well as a response to the Q&V questionnaire and the additional questions in the document package, are due to the Department no later than 60 calendar days after publication of this Federal Register notice. The deadline and requirement for submitting a Separate Rate Status Application applies equally to NME-owned firms, wholly foreign-owned firms, and foreign sellers that purchase and export subject merchandise to the United States.

2 Such entities include entities that have not participated in the proceeding, entities that were preliminarily granted a separate rate in any currently incomplete segment of the proceeding (e.g., an ongoing administrative review, new shipper review, etc.) and entities that lost their separate rate in the most recently completed segment of the proceeding in which they participated.

3 Only changes to the official company name, rather than trade names, need to be addressed via a Separate Rate Application. Information regarding new trade names may be submitted via a Separate Rate Certification.

For exporters and producers who submit a separate-rate status application or certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents, these exporters and producers will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.

Furthermore, this notice constitutes public notification to all firms for which an antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture has been requested, and that are seeking separate rate status in the review, that they must submit a timely separate rate application or certification (as appropriate) as described above, and a timely response to the Q&V questionnaire and the additional questions in the document package on the Department's Web site in order to receive consideration for separate-rate status. In other words, the Department will not give consideration to any timely separate rate certification or application made by parties who failed to respond in a timely manner to the Q&V questionnaire and the additional questions. All information submitted by respondents in the antidumping duty administrative review of wooden bedroom furniture from the PRC is subject to verification. As noted above, the separate rate certification, the separate rate application, the Q&V questionnaire, and the additional questions will be available in a document package on the Department's Web site on the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register.

Initiation of Reviews

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following antidumping and countervailing duty orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than January 31, 2015.

4 The companies listed above were inadvertently omitted from the initiation notice that published on February 3, 2014 (79 FR 6147).

5 The company name listed above was misspelled in the initiation notice that published on February 3, 2014 (79 FR 6147). The correct spelling of the company is listed in this notice.

Countervailing Duty Proceedings

None.

Suspension Agreements

None.

During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an antidumping duty order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), the Secretary, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine, consistent with FAG Italia v. United States, 291 F.3d 806 (Fed Cir. 2002), as appropriate, whether antidumping duties have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.

For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant provisional-measures “gap” period, of the order, if such a gap period is applicable to the POR.

Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. On January 22, 2008, the Department published Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Documents Submission Procedures; APO Procedures, 73 FR 3634 (January 22, 2008). Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that the meet the requirements of these procedures (e.g., the filing of separate letters of appearance as discussed at 19 CFR 351.103(d)).

Revised Factual Information Requirements

On April 10, 2013, the Department published Definition of Factual Information and Time Limits for Submission of Factual Information: Final Rule, 78 FR 21246 (April 10, 2013), which modified two regulations related to antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: the definition of factual information (19 CFR 351.102(b)(21)), and the time limits for the submission of factual information (19 CFR 351.301). The final rule identifies five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) Evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by the Department; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). The final rule requires any party, when submitting factual information, to specify under which subsection of 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21) the information is being submitted and, if the information is submitted to rebut, clarify, or correct factual information already on the record, to provide an explanation identifying the information already on the record that the factual information seeks to rebut, clarify, or correct. The final rule also modified 19 CFR 351.301 so that, rather than providing general time limits, there are specific time limits based on the type of factual information being submitted. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after May 10, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/2013/1304frn/2013-08227.txt, prior to submitting factual information in this segment.

Any party submitting factual information in an antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information.6 Parties are hereby reminded that revised certification requirements are in effect for company/government officials as well as their representatives. Ongoing segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after March 14, 2011 should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Interim Final Rule.7 All segments of any antidumping duty or countervailing duty proceedings initiated on or after August 16, 2013, should use the formats for the revised certifications provided at the end of the Final Rule.8 The Department intends to reject factual submissions in any proceeding segments if the submitting party does not comply with applicable revised certification requirements.

8See Certification of Factual Information To Import Administration During Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings, 78 FR 42678 (July 17, 2013) (“Final Rule”); see also the frequently asked questions regarding the Final Rule, available at http://enforcement.trade.gov/tlei/notices/factual_info_final_rule_FAQ_07172013.pdf.

Revised Extension of Time Limits Regulation

On September 20, 2013, the Department modified its regulation concerning the extension of time limits for submissions in antidumping and countervailing duty proceedings: Final Rule, 78 FR 57790 (September 20, 2013). The modification clarifies that parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by the Secretary. In general, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after the time limit established under Part 351 expires. For submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously, an extension request will be considered untimely if it is filed after 10:00 a.m. on the due date. Examples include, but are not limited to: (1) Case and rebuttal briefs, filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309; (2) factual information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c), or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2), filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3) and rebuttal, clarification and correction filed pursuant to 19 CFR 351.301(c)(3)(iv); (3) comments concerning the selection of a surrogate country and surrogate values and rebuttal; (4) comments concerning U.S. Customs and Border Protection data; and (5) quantity and value questionnaires. Under certain circumstances, the Department may elect to specify a different time limit by which extension requests will be considered untimely for submissions which are due from multiple parties simultaneously. In such a case, the Department will inform parties in the letter or memorandum setting forth the deadline (including a specified time) by which extension requests must be filed to be considered timely. This modification also requires that an extension request must be made in a separate, stand-alone submission, and clarifies the circumstances under which the Department will grant untimely-filed requests for the extension of time limits. These modifications are effective for all segments initiated on or after October 21, 2013. Please review the final rule, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-20/html/2013-22853.htm, prior to submitting factual information in these segments.

These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).

The Department of Commerce (the Department) published its preliminary results on August 7, 2013.1 The period of review is July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. This review covers two mandatory respondents, Jindal Poly Films Limited (Jindal) and SRF Limited (SRF), and one non-selected respondent, Polyplex Corporation Ltd. (Polyplex). For the final results we continue to find that Polyplex and SRF sold subject merchandise at less than normal value.

On August 7, 2013, the Department published the Preliminary Results.2 We invited interested parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. Jindal submitted a letter in lieu of a case brief on September 6, 2013. SRF submitted a case brief on September 20, 2013. Petitioners submitted a letter in lieu of a rebuttal brief on October 18, 2013, stating that the Department should not alter the differential pricing methodology that it used in the Preliminary Results.

2Id.

As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.3 Therefore, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 16 days. The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now February 21, 2014.

3See Memorandum for the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (October 18, 2013).

The Department has conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act).

Scope of the Order

The products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed PET Film, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET Film are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the antidumping duty order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of issues that parties raised and to which we respond in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov, and is available to all parties in the Central Records Unit, Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://trade.gov/enforcement/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, no changes have been made to Jindal's calculations. SRF's preliminary rate in the companion countervailing duty administrative review was 2.84 percent; 4 however, its final rate for the companion countervailing duty administrative review is 2.64 percent. The entirety of SRF's countervailing duty rate is based on export subsidies. Therefore, we have adjusted SRF's antidumping duty rate accordingly by the entire amount of its countervailing duty rate for these final results.5

5See Memorandum to Mark Hoadley, Program Manager “Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from India: SRF Limited, dated concurrently with these final results.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we determine the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012.

The Department determines, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. We will instruct CBP to liquidate entries of merchandise produced and/or exported by Jindal, SRF, and Polyplex. The Department will issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of review. For assessment purposes, where the respondent reported the entered value for its sales, we calculated importer-specific (or customer-specific) ad valorem assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of the dumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales.6 However, where the respondent did not report the entered value for its sales, we will calculate importer-specific (or customer-specific) per-unit duty assessment rates. We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review if any per-unit duty assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.50 percent). For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis in these final results, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of the sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), we will instruct CBP to liquidate without regard to antidumping duties any entries for which the assessment rate is zero or de minimis (i.e., less than 0.50 percent).7

6See 19 CFR 351.212(b).

7See 19 CFR 351.106(c)(1).

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of PET Film from India entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or de minimis,i.e., less than 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the all others rate for this proceeding, 5.71 percent. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

The Department is issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

Dated: February 21, 2014.Paul Piquado,Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.AppendixList of Topics Discussed in the Issues and Decision MemorandumComment 1: Differential Pricing Analysis: Magnitude of the Observed Price Differences Ignored.Comment 2: Differential Pricing Analysis: Inclusion of Both Higher- and Lower-Priced Sales.Comment 3: Differential Pricing Analysis: Results of the Cohen's d Test By Purchaser, Region or Time Period Should Be Considered Separately.Comment 4: Differential Pricing Analysis: Results of the Cohen's d Test By Time Period Is Flawed.Comment 5: Differential Pricing Analysis: The Cohen's d Test Does Not Measure Causal Links or Statistical Significance But Systematically Results in Affirmative Determinations.Comment 6: Differential Pricing Analysis: Explanation of Why the Average-to-Average Method Cannot Account for Such Differences.Comment 7: The Withdrawal of the Regulatory Provisions Governing Targeted Dumping in Less-Than-Fair-Value Investigations.Comment 8: Use of an Alternative Comparison Method in Administrative Reviews.[FR Doc. 2014-04432 Filed 2-27-14; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3510-DS-PDEPARTMENT OF COMMERCEInternational Trade Administration[A-583-837]Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip From Taiwan: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2011-2012AGENCY:

Enforcement and Compliance, formerly Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published its preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film, sheet, and strip from Taiwan.1 The period of review (“POR”) is July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. Based upon our analysis of the comments received, we have made changes to the margin calculations for these final results and continue to determine that Shinkong Synthetic Fibers Corporation and its subsidiary Shinkong Material Technology Corporation (collectively “Shinkong”) made sales below normal value. The final dumping margin is listed below in the “Final Results of Review” section of this notice.

On August 9, 2013, the Department published the Preliminary Results.2 The Department conducted verification from August 22 through 30, 2013 in Taipei, Taiwan. On November 8, 2013, Shinkong submitted an updated database.

2See Preliminary Results.

As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013.3 Therefore, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 16 days. If the new deadline falls on a non-business day, in accordance with the Department's practice, the deadline will become the next business day. In addition, the Department extended the deadline for the final results on November 1, 2013, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A). The revised deadline for the final results of this review is now February 24, 2014.4

3See Memorandum for the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for the Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (October 18, 2013).

The products covered by the antidumping duty order are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metalized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip are currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the antidumping duty order is dispositive.

A full description of the scope of the order is contained in the memorandum from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, “Decision Memorandum for Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Polyethylene Terephthalate Film, Sheet, and Strip from Taiwan; 2011-2012 Administrative Review” (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is issued concurrent with and hereby adopted by this notice.

Analysis of Comments Received

The issue raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The issue which parties raised is identified in the Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building, as well as electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (“IA ACCESS”). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the CRU. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the internet at http://www.trade.gov/enforcement. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of the comments received and information gathered after the Preliminary Results, we have made adjustments to the margin calculations for Shinkong's indirect selling expenses.

Final Results of Review

We determine that Shinkong's weighted-average dumping margin is 4.48 percent for entries of subject merchandise that were produced and/or exported by Shinkong and that entered, or were withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012.

Assessment Rates

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP 15 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review.

For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (i.e., 0.5 percent) in the final results, we will calculate importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). We will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review when the importer-specific assessment rate calculated in the final results of this review is above de minimis. Where either the respondent's weighted average dumping margin is zero or below de minimis or an importer-specific assessment rate is zero or de minimis, we will instruct CBP to liquidate the appropriate entries without regard to antidumping duties.

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003. This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each respondent for which they did not know that their merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Proceedings: Assessment of Antidumping Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003).

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of PET film from Taiwan entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”): (1) The cash deposit rate for the company under review will be the rate established in the final results of this review (except, if the rate is zero or below de minimis,i.e., 0.5 percent, no cash deposit will be required); (2) for previously reviewed or investigated companies not listed above, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the less-than-fair-value investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recent period for the manufacturer of the merchandise; and, (4) if neither the exporter nor the manufacturer is a firm covered in this or any previous review, the cash deposit rate will be the all others rate for this proceeding, 2.40 percent, as established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification Regarding Administrative Protective Orders

This notice is the only reminder to parties subject to the administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

Notification to Importers

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

These final results of administrative review and notice are published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

Dated: February 24, 2014.Paul Piquado,Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance.AppendixTopic Discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum

Whether Shinkong's underutilized capacity should be classified as a cost of manufacturing or as a general and administrative expense.

On August 7, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of the antidumping duty administrative review of certain pasta (pasta) from Italy and gave interested parties an opportunity to comment on the Preliminary Results.1 The review covers two mandatory respondents, Pastificio Gallo Natale & F.lli S.r.L. (Gallo), and Rummo,2 and six non-selected companies.3 The period of review (POR) is July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. As a result of our analysis of the comments and information received, these final results differ from the Preliminary Results. For the final weighted-average dumping margin, see the “Final Results of Review” section below.

On August 7, 2013, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the Preliminary Results. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results.4 On September 6, 2013, Gallo submitted its case brief and Rummo requested a hearing. Rummo withdrew its hearing request on January 16, 2014. The Department conducted the verification of Rummo's cost and sales responses in Italy, from December 2 through 6, 2013, and December 9 through 13, 2013, respectively.

4 The Department issued the briefing schedule in a Memorandum to the File, dated January 7, 2014. This briefing schedule indicated that the case and rebuttal briefs were due by close of business January 15, 2014 and January 22, 2014, respectively.

On January 15, 2014, Rummo filed a case brief and Petitioners 5 submitted a case brief regarding Gallo. On January 22, 2014, Petitioners and Gallo filed their respective rebuttal briefs.

5 Petitioners are American Italian Pasta Company and Dakota Growers Pasta Company.

As explained in the memorandum from the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, the Department has exercised its discretion to toll deadlines for the duration of the closure of the Federal Government from October 1, through October 16, 2013. Therefore, all deadlines in this segment of the proceeding have been extended by 16 days.6 Pursuant to the Tolling Memo, the deadline for the final results of this review was revised with a due date of December 23, 2013.

6See Memorandum for the Record from Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, “Deadlines Affected by the Shutdown of the Federal Government” (October 18, 2013) (Tolling Memo).

On October 23, 2013, the Department issued a memorandum extending the time period for issuing the final results of this administrative review from December 23, 2013 to February 21, 2014.

Scope of the Order

Imports covered by the order are shipments of certain non-egg dry pasta. The merchandise subject to review is currently classifiable under items 1901.90.90.95 and 1902.19.20 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the merchandise subject to the order is dispositive.7

7 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the “Decision Memorandum for the Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Certain Pasta from Italy” from Christian Marsh, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Operations, to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, dated concurrently with this notice (Issues and Decision Memorandum) and incorporated herein by reference.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues that parties raised and to which we responded is attached to this notice as Appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on-file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit (CRU), Room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and the electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our Preliminary Results, we have recalculated Gallo and Rummo's weighted-average dumping margins. Gallo's and Rummo's adjustments are discussed in detail in the accompanying final calculation memoranda.8 As a result of the aforementioned recalculation of Gallo's and Rummo's rates, the weighted-average dumping margin for the six non-selected companies has changed.

As a result of this review, the Department determines the following weighted-average dumping margins 9 for the period July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012, are as follows:

9 The rate applied to the non-selected companies is a weighted-average percentage margin calculated based on the publicly-ranged U.S. volumes of the two reviewed companies with an affirmative dumping margin, for the period July 1, 2011, through June 30, 2012. See Memorandum to the File, titled, “Certain Pasta from Italy: Margin for Respondents Not Selected for Individual Examination,” from George McMahon and Stephanie Moore, Case Analysts, through Eric B. Greynolds, Program Manager, dated concurrently with this notice.

The Department shall determine and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries.10 For any individually examined respondents whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis, we calculated importer-specific ad valorem duty assessment rates based on the ratio of the total amount of dumping calculated for the importer's examined sales to the total entered value of those same sales in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1). Upon issuance of the final results of this administrative review, if any importer-specific assessment rates calculated in the final results are above de minimis (i.e., at or above 0.5 percent), the Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to CBP to assess antidumping duties on appropriate entries.

To determine whether the duty assessment rates covering the period were de minimis, in accordance with the requirement set forth in 19 CFR 351.106(c)(2), for each respondent we calculated importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rates by aggregating the amount of dumping calculated for all U.S. sales to that importer or customer and dividing this amount by the total entered value of the sales to that importer (or customer). Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis, and the respondent has reported reliable entered values, we apply the assessment rate to the entered value of the importer's/customer's entries during the review period. Where an importer (or customer)-specific ad valorem rate is greater than de minimis and we do not have reliable entered values, we calculate a per-unit assessment rate by aggregating the amount of dumping for all U.S. sales to each importer (or customer) and dividing this amount by the total quantity sold to that importer (or customer).

The Department clarified its “automatic assessment” regulation on May 6, 2003.11 This clarification will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the respondent for which it did not know its merchandise was destined for the United States. In such instances, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction. For a full discussion of this clarification, see the Automatic Assessment Clarification.

We intend to issue assessment instructions directly to CBP 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of final results of administrative review for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for respondents noted above will be the rate established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by manufacturers or exporters not covered in this administrative review but covered in a prior segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the manufacturer is, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding for the manufacturer of the subject merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other manufacturers or exporters will continue to be 15.45 percent, the all-others rate established in the antidumping investigation as modified by the section 129 determination. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Notification to Importers Regarding the Reimbursement of Duties

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Department's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.

Administrative Protective Order

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h).

On January 10, 2014, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published its notice of initiation and preliminary results of a changed circumstances review (“CCR”) of the antidumping duty order on Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp (“shrimp”) from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (“Vietnam”).1 The Department preliminarily determined that Gallant Dachan Seafood Co., Ltd. (“Dachan”) is the successor-in-interest to Gallant Ocean (Quang Ngai), Co. Ltd. (“Quang Ngai”). We invited parties to comment. No parties submitted comments, and for these final results we continue to find that Dachan is the successor-in-interest to Quang Ngai.

On October 31, 2013,2 Dachan requested that the Department conduct a CCR to determine whether it is the successor-in-interest to Quang Ngai, for purposes of determining antidumping duties due as a result of the Order.3 On January 10, 2014, the Department initiated the CCR of Dachan and preliminarily determined that Dachan is the successor-in-interest to Quang Ngai.4 In the Preliminary Results, the Department invited interested parties to comment.5 We received no comments or requests for a hearing from interested parties.

2 This changed circumstances review was originally filed on September 30, 2013, within the seventh administrative review for frozen shrimp from Vietnam. Pursuant to instructions from the Department, Gallant Ocean re-filed this CCR on October 31, 2013.

3See Letter from Gallant Ocean dated October 31, 2013, at 3.

4See Preliminary Results, 79 FR at 1825.

5Id., 79 FR at 1826.

Scope of the Order

The merchandise subject to the order is certain frozen warmwater shrimp. The product is currently classified under the following Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States item numbers: 0306.17.00.03, 0306.17.00.06, 0306.17.00.09, 0306.17.00.12, 0306.17.00.15, 0306.17.00.18, 0306.17.00.21, 0306.17.00.24, 0306.17.00.27, 0306.17.00.40, 1605.21.10.30, and 1605.29.10.10. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.6

6 For a full description of the scope of the order, see the Department's memorandum to the file titled “Placing on the Record: Issues and Decision Memorandum from the review covering the period February 1, 2011, through January 31, 2012,” (February 12, 2014).

Final Results of Changed Circumstances Review

Because no parties have submitted comments opposing the Department's preliminary determination, and because there is no other information or evidence on the record that calls into question the Preliminary Results, the Department determines that Dachan is the successor-in-interest to Quang Ngai for the purpose of determining antidumping duty liability.

Instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection

As a result of this determination, we find that Dachan should receive the cash deposit rate previously assigned to Quang Ngai in the most recently completed review of the antidumping duty order on shrimp from Vietnam. Consequently, the Department will instruct U.S Customs and Border Protection to collect estimated antidumping duties for all shipments of subject merchandise exported by Dachan and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of this notice in the Federal Register at the current cash deposit rate for Quang Ngai, which is 0.00 percent.7 This cash deposit requirement shall remain in effect until further notice.

This notice serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.306. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and 19 CFR 351.216.

On August 7, 2013, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty order on polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet, and strip (PET film) from India.1 The period of review (POR) is January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011. Based on the analysis of the comment received, the Department has made a change to the subsidy rate determined for SRF Limited (SRF). The final subsidy rate is listed in the “Final Results of Review” section below.

The products covered are all gauges of raw, pretreated, or primed polyethylene terephthalate film, sheet and strip, whether extruded or coextruded. Excluded are metallized films and other finished films that have had at least one of their surfaces modified by the application of a performance-enhancing resinous or inorganic layer of more than 0.00001 inches thick. Imports of PET film are classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item number 3920.62.00.90. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

The issue raised by SRF in its case brief is addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.2 The issue is identified in the Appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (IA ACCESS). Access to IA ACCESS is available to registered users at http://iaaccess.trade.gov and in the Central Records Unit, room 7046 of the main Department of Commerce building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Internet at http://enforcement.trade.gov/frn/. The signed Issues and Decision Memorandum and electronic versions of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Based on the comment received from SRF, we made a change to the Department's U.S. dollar-denominated short-term benchmark calculations from the Preliminary Results. For a discussion of the issue, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Administrative Review

In accordance with section 777A(e)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act) and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5), we calculated an individual ad valorem subsidy rate for SRF, for the POR for this administrative review.

Manufacturer/exporterSubsidy rate

(percent)

SRF Limited2.64Assessment and Cash Deposit Requirements

The Department intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to liquidate shipments of subject merchandise produced and/or exported by SRF entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2011, at 2.64 percent ad valorem of the entered value, 15 days after publication of the final results of this review.

The Department intends also to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the rate of 2.64 percent ad valorem of the entered value on shipments of the subject merchandise produced and exported by SRF, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. We intend to instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits for non-reviewed companies at the applicable company-specific countervailing duty rate for the most recent period or all-others rate established in the investigation. These deposit rates, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Administrative Protective Order

This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), United States Department of Commerce (DoC).

ACTION:

Notice of Funding Availability.

SUMMARY:

NIST invites applications from eligible applicants for funding one (1) MEP center in the State of Florida. The objective of the MEP center is to provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the state of Florida. The MEP center will become part of the MEP national system of extension service providers, currently comprised of more than 400 centers and field offices located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.

DATES:

Electronic applications must be received no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on May 14, 2014. Paper applications must be received by NIST by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 14, 2014. Applications received after the respective deadline will not be reviewed or considered. The earliest anticipated start date for awards made under this notice and the corresponding Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) announcement is expected to be October 1, 2014.

Electronic access: Applicants are strongly encouraged to read the corresponding Federal Funding Opportunity (FFO) announcement available at www.grants.gov for complete information about this program, including all program requirements and instructions for applying by paper or electronically. The FFO may be found by searching under the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Name and Number provided below.

Webinar Information Session: NIST MEP will hold an information session for organizations that are considering applying to this opportunity. This webinar will provide general information regarding MEP and offer general guidance on preparing proposals. NIST/MEP staff will be available on the webinar to answer general questions. During the webinar, proprietary technical discussions about specific project ideas will not be permitted. Also, NIST/MEP staff will not critique or provide feedback on any project ideas during the webinar or at any time before submission of a proposal to MEP. However, NIST/MEP staff will provide information about the MEP eligibility and cost-sharing requirements, evaluation criteria and selection factors, selection process, and the general characteristics of a competitive MEP proposal during this webinar, and by phone and email. The webinar will be held approximately 14 business days after posting of the FFO and publication in the Federal Register. The exact date and time of the webinar will be posted on the MEP Web site at www.nist.gov/mep. The webinar will be recorded and a link to the recording will be posted on the MEP Web site. In addition, the webinar presentation will be available after the webinar on the MEP Web site. Organizations wishing to participate in the webinar must sign up by contacting Diane Henderson at diane.henderson@nist.gov.

Program Description: NIST invites applications from eligible applicants for funding one (1) MEP center to provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the state of Florida. The MEP center will become part of the MEP national system of extension service providers, currently comprised of more than 400 centers and field offices located throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.

The objective of an MEP center is to provide manufacturing extension services that enhance productivity, innovative capacity, and technological performance, and strengthen the global competitiveness of primarily small- and medium-sized U.S.-based manufacturing firms in its service region. Manufacturing extension services are provided by utilizing the most cost effective, local, leveraged resources for those services through the coordinated efforts of a regionally-based MEP center and local technology resources. The management and operational structure of an MEP center is not prescribed, but should be based upon the characteristics of the manufacturers in the region and locally available resources with demonstrated experience working with manufacturers.

It is not the intent of this program that the centers perform research and development.

Information regarding MEP and these centers is available at www.nist.gov/mep.

Funding Availability: NIST anticipates funding one (1) application at the level of approximately $3,500,000 for an initial award for an MEP Center in the state of Florida. The project awarded under the FFO will have a budget and performance period of one (1) year. The award may be renewed on an annual basis in accordance with 15 CFR § 290.4. NIST may provide annual renewal funding at a higher or lower level in the future based on availability of funds.

Cost Share Requirements: Non-Federal cost sharing of at least 50 percent of the total project costs is required for the first year of operation. Any renewal funding of an award will require non-Federal cost sharing as follows:

Year of center operationMaximum NIST shareMinimum non-federal share1-31/21/242/53/55 and beyond1/32/3

Non-Federal cost sharing is that portion of the project costs not borne by the Federal Government. The applicant's share of the MEP center expenses may include cash, services, and third party in-kind contributions, as described at 15 CFR § 14.23 or § 24.24, as applicable, and the MEP program rule, 15 CFR § 290.4(c). No more than 50% of the applicant's total non-Federal cost share may be third party in-kind contributions of part-time personnel, equipment, software, rental value of centrally located space, and related contributions, per 15 CFR § 290.4(c)(5). The source and detailed rationale of the cost share, including cash, full- and part-time personnel, and in-kind donations, must be documented in the budget submitted with the application and will be considered as part of the evaluation review under Section V.1(c) of the FFO.

All non-Federal cost share contributions require a letter of commitment signed by an authorized official from each source.

Any cost sharing must be in accordance with the “cost sharing or matching” provisions of 15 CFR Part 14, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, Other Non-Profit, and Commercial Organizations or 15 CFR part 24, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, as applicable.

As with the Federal share, any proposed costs included as non-Federal cost sharing must be an allowable/eligible cost under this Program and the following applicable Federal cost principles: (1) Institutions of Higher Education: 2 CFR part 220 (OMB Circular A-21); (2) Nonprofit Organizations: 2 CFR part 230 (OMB Circular A-122); and (3) State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments: 2 CFR part 225 (OMB Circular A-87).

As with the Federal share, any proposed non-Federal cost sharing will be made a part of the cooperative agreement award and will be subject to audit if the project receives MEP funding.

Eligibility: The eligibility requirements given in this section will be used for this competition only in lieu of those published in the MEP regulations found at 15 CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR § 290.5(a)(1). Each award recipient must be a U.S.-based nonprofit institution or organization. For the purpose of this funding opportunity, nonprofit organizations include universities and state and local governments. An eligible organization may work individually or include proposed subawards or contracts with others in a project application, effectively forming a team. Existing MEP awardees who meet the eligibility criteria set forth in this section may apply. However, as discussed in Section III.3.b. of the FFO, NIST will generally not fund applications that propose an organizational or operational structure that, in whole or in part, delegates or transfers to another person, institution, or organization the applicant's responsibility for core MEP management and oversight functions.

Application Requirements: Applications must be submitted in accordance with the requirements set forth in the corresponding FFO announcement.

Application/Review Information: The evaluation criteria, selection factors, and review and selection process provided in this section will be used for this competition only in lieu of those provided in the MEP regulations found at 15 CFR part 290, specifically 15 CFR §§ 290.6 and 290.7.

The evaluation criteria that will be used in evaluating applications and assigned weights, with a maximum score of 100, are listed below.

a. Project Narrative. (60 points; Sub-criteria i-iii will be weighted equally) The extent to which the applicant's proposal demonstrates how the applicant will efficiently and effectively establish an MEP center to provide manufacturing extension services to primarily small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the state of Florida will be evaluated. Reviewers will consider the following topics when evaluating the Project Narrative:

i. Market Understanding. Reviewers will assess the strategy proposed for the Center to define the target market, understand the needs of manufacturers, with an emphasis on the small- and medium-sized manufacturers, and determine appropriate services to meet identified needs. The following sub-topics will be evaluated:

(1) Geographic Scope and Targeting. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the applicant

• delineates target service regions and manufacturers;

• makes use of appropriate quantitative and qualitative data sources and market intelligence to support proposed strategies and approaches to defining and segmenting the market; and

• aligns priority industries and regions with other state and regional priorities and investments.

(2) Needs Identification and Service Offerings. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the applicant's proposed Center

• meets existing and emerging needs of manufacturers in the service region;

• makes use of multiple sources of qualitative and quantitative information to determine manufacturers' needs and how to address them;

• makes use of resources, tools and services appropriate for the targeted small- and medium-sized manufacturers to meet identified needs of the region; and

• incorporates a range of complementary service providers and partners to deliver broad expertise and maximum value to manufacturing clients.

ii. Center Strategy. Reviewers will assess the strategy proposed for the Center to deliver services that meet manufacturers' needs and generate impact. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the proposed Center:

• Incorporates the market analysis described in criterion (i) above to inform strategies, products and services;

• defines a strategy for delivering services that balances market penetration with impact and revenue generation, addressing the needs of manufacturers, with an emphasis on the small- and medium-sized manufacturers;

• defines a state or regional ecosystem in which the Center will operate, including universities, community colleges, technology-based economic developers, and others; and

• supports achievements of the MEP mission and objectives while also satisfying the interests of other stakeholders, investors, and partners.

iii. Business Model. Reviewers will assess the proposed business model of the Center and its ability to execute the strategy proposed in criterion (ii) based on the market understanding described in Section V.1.a.i. above. The following sub-topics will be evaluated:

(1) Approach to the Market. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the proposed Center:

• Reaches area manufacturers;

• enables the use of delivery methods (direct delivery, third party, account management); and

• facilitates the engagement of manufacturers' leadership in strategic discussions related to new technologies, new products, and new markets.

(2) Products and Services. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the proposed Center:

• Engages expertise both from within the Center and from other sub-recipients and partners to make available a wide range of experts and services to manufacturers;

• delivers services to small- and medium-sized manufacturers to encourage adoption of new technologies, developing new products, and selling products in new markets;

• balances delivering process improvement services with services that will transform and grow manufacturers; and

• delivers advanced manufacturing technology to small- and medium-sized manufacturers and mechanisms for accelerating the adoption of technologies for both process improvement and new product adoption.

(3) Partnership Leverage and Linkages. Reviewers will assess the extent to which the proposed Center:

• Establishes a sustainable business model, incorporating investment from NIST, other public investors (federal, state, and local), small- and medium-sized manufacturing clients, and other sources; and

• makes use of effective resources or partnerships with third parties such as industry, universities, nonprofit economic organizations, and state governments likely to amplify the Center's capabilities for delivering growth services.

b. Qualifications of the Applicant and Program Management (20 points; Sub-criteria i and ii will be weighted equally). Reviewers will assess the ability of the key personnel and the management structure proposed to deliver the program and services envisioned for the Center. Reviewers will consider the following topics when evaluating the Qualifications of the Applicant and Program Management

i. Key Personnel and Organizational Structure. Reviewers will assess the extent to which:

• Proposed key personnel have the appropriate experience and education in manufacturing, outreach and partnership development to support achievements of the MEP mission and objectives;

• proposed key personnel have the appropriate experience and education to plan, direct, monitor, organize and control the monetary resources of the proposed Center to achieve its business objectives and maximize its value;

• the proposed management structure (leadership and governance) is aligned to support the execution of the strategy, products and services;

• the proposed staffing plan flows logically from the specified approach to the market and products and service offerings.

• the organizational roles and responsibilities of key personnel and staff are clearly delineated;

• the proposed field staff structure sufficiently supports the geographic concentrations and industry targets for the region; and

• a workable governance structure is delineated, including an oversight Board with a membership representing small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the region.

ii. Program Management. Reviewers will assess the extent to which:

• The proposed methodology of program management and internal evaluation is likely to ensure effective operations and oversight and meet program and service delivery objectives;

• the proposed evaluation plan is aligned to support the execution of the proposed Center's strategy and business model; and

c. Budget Narrative and Financial Plan. (20 points; Sub-criteria i and ii will be weighted equally) Reviewers will assess the suitability and focus of the applicant's detailed one-year budget. The application will be assessed in the following areas:

i. Plans for Financial Cost Share. Reviewers will assess the extent to which:

• The applicant's funding commitments for cost share are identified and demonstrate stability and duration; and

• the applicant clearly describes the total level of cost share and detailed rationale of the cost share, including cash and in-kind, within the proposed budget.

ii. Financial Viability. Reviewers will assess the extent to which:

• The proposed projections for income and expenditures are appropriate for the scale of services that are to be delivered by the proposed Center and the service delivery model envisioned;

• the proposal's narrative of each of the budgeted items explains the rationale for each of the budgeted items, including assumptions the applicant used in budgeting for the Center;

• the overall financial plan is sufficiently robust and diversified so as to support the long term sustainability of the Center; and

• the proposed financial plan is aligned to support the execution of the proposed Center's strategy and business model.

Selection Factors. The Selecting Official shall select applications for award based upon the rank order of the applications, and may select an application out of rank based on one or more of the following selection factors:

a. The availability of Federal funds.

b. Relevance of the proposed project to MEP program goals and policy objectives.

c. Reviewers' evaluations, including technical comments.

d. The need to assure appropriate distribution within Florida and the surrounding region.

e. Whether the project duplicates other projects funded by DoC or by other Federal agencies.

Review and Selection Process:

(1) Initial Administrative Review of Applications. An initial review of timely received applications will be conducted to determine eligibility, completeness, and responsiveness to this notice and the corresponding FFO and the scope of the stated program objectives. Applications determined to be ineligible, incomplete, and/or non-responsive may be eliminated from further review. However, NIST, in its sole discretion, may continue the review process for an application that is missing non-substantive information that can easily be rectified or cured.

(2) Full Review of Eligible, Complete, and Responsive Applications. Applications that are determined to be eligible, complete, and responsive will proceed for full reviews in accordance with the review and selection processes below:

(3) Evaluation and Review. Each application will be reviewed by at least three technically qualified reviewers, who will evaluate each application based on the evaluation criteria (see Section V.1. of the FFO). Each reviewer will assign each application a numeric score for each application. If a non-Federal employee reviewer is used, the reviewers may discuss the applications with each other, but scores will be determined on an individual basis, not as a consensus. Reviewers will assign each application a score, based on the application's responsiveness to the criteria above, with a maximum score of 100. Applicants whose applications receive an average score of 70 or higher out of 100 will be deemed finalists.

Finalists may receive written follow-up questions in order for the reviewers to gain a better understanding of the applicant's proposal. Once the reviewers have completed their review of the applicant's responses, a conference call or site visit may be deemed necessary. If deemed necessary, either all finalists will participate one-on-one with reviewers in a conference call or all finalists will receive site visits that will be conducted by the reviewers referenced in the preceding paragraph. Finalists will be reviewed and evaluated, and reviewers may revise their assigned numeric scores based on the evaluation criteria (see Section V.1. of the FFO) as a result of the conference call or site visit.

(4) Ranking and Selection. Based on the reviewers' final numeric scores, a rank order will be prepared and provided to the Selecting Official for further consideration. The Selecting Official, who is the Director of the NIST MEP Program, will then select funding recipients based upon the rank order and the selection factors (see Section V.2. of the FFO).

NIST reserves the right to negotiate the budget costs with any applicant selected to receive an award, which may include requesting that the applicant remove certain costs. Additionally, NIST may request that the successful applicant modify objectives or work plans and provide supplemental information required by the agency prior to award. NIST also reserves the right to reject an application where information is uncovered that raises a reasonable doubt as to the responsibility of the applicant. NIST may select part, some, all, or none of the applications. The final approval of selected applications and issuance of awards will be by the NIST Grants Officer. The award decisions of the NIST Grants Officer are final.

Anticipated Announcement and Award Date. Review, selection, and award processing is expected to be completed in September 2014. The earliest anticipated start date for awards made under this notice and the corresponding FFO is expected to be October 1, 2014.

Additional Information

a. Application Replacement Pages. Applicants may not submit replacement pages and/or missing documents once an application has been submitted. Any revisions must be made by submission of a new application that must be received by NIST by the submission deadline.

b. Notification to Unsuccessful Applicants. Unsuccessful applicants will be notified in writing.

c. Retention of Unsuccessful Applications. For paper applications, one (1) of each non-selected application will be retained for three (3) years for record keeping purposes and the other two (2) copies will be destroyed. After three (3) years, the remaining copy will be destroyed. For electronic applications, an electronic copy of each non-selected application will be retained for three (3) years for record keeping purposes. After three (3) years, it will be destroyed.

Administrative and National Policy Requirements.

The Department of Commerce Pre-Award Notification Requirements: The DoC Pre-Award Notification Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements, which are contained in the Federal Register notice of December 17, 2012 (77 FR 74634), are applicable to this notice and the corresponding FFO and are available at http://www.osec.doc.gov/oam/grants_management/policy/documents/Department%20of%20Commerce%20Financial%20Assistance%20Pre%20Award%20Notice%20-%2077%20FR%2074634.pdf

Employer/Taxpayer Identification Number (EIN/TIN), Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS), and System for Award Management (SAM): All applicants for Federal financial assistance are required to obtain a universal identifier in the form of DUNS number and maintain a current registration in the Federal government's primary registrant database, SAM. On the form SF-424 items 8.b. and 8.c., the applicant's 9-digit EIN/TIN and 9-digit DUNS number must be consistent with the information in SAM (https://www.sam.gov/) and the Automated Standard Application for Payment System (ASAP). For complex organizations with multiple EINs/TINs and DUNS numbers, the EIN/TIN and DUNS numbers MUST be the numbers for the applying organization. Organizations that provide incorrect/inconsistent EIN/TIN and DUNS numbers may experience significant delays in receiving funds if their application is selected for funding. Confirm that the EIN/TIN and DUNS number are consistent with the information on the SAM and ASAP. Please note that a federal assistance award cannot be issued if the designated recipient's registration in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) is not current at the time of the award.

Per 2 CFR part 25, each applicant must:

1. Be registered in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) before submitting an application, noting the CCR now resides in SAM;

2. Maintain an active CCR registration, noting the CCR now resides in SAM, with current information at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by an agency; and

3. Provide its DUNS number in each application or application it submits to the agency.

The applicant can obtain a DUNS number from Dun and Bradstreet. A DUNS number can be created within one business day. The CCR or SAM registration process may take five or more business days to complete. If you are currently registered with the CCR, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the EIN/TIN associated with your DUNS number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your CCR registration annually. This may take three or more business days to complete. Information about SAM is available at www.sam.gov. See also 2 CFR part 25 and the Federal Registernotice published on September 14, 2010, at 75 FR 55671.

See also 2 CFR part 25 and the Federal Register notice published on September 14, 2010, at 75 FR 55671.

Paperwork Reduction Act: The standard forms in the application kit involve a collection of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act. The use of Standard Forms 424, 424A, 424B, SF-LLL, and CD-346 have been approved by OMB under t